MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992938819 · doi:10.1007/s10623-015-0067-5

Finding shortest lattice vectors faster using quantum search

2015· article· en· W1992938819 on OpenAlexafffund
Thijs Laarhoven, Michele Mosca, Joop van de Pol

Bibliographic record

VenueDesigns Codes and Cryptography · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of WaterlooCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueLorentz CenterNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsLattice problemQuantumLattice (music)Computer scienceTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmPhysicsQuantum mechanicsCryptography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By applying a quantum search algorithm to various heuristic and provable sieve algorithms from the literature, we obtain improved asymptotic quantum results for solving the shortest vector problem on lattices. With quantum computers we can provably find a shortest vector in time $$2^{1.799n + o(n)}$$ , improving upon the classical time complexities of $$2^{2.465n + o(n)}$$ of Pujol and Stehlé and the $$2^{2n + o(n)}$$ of Micciancio and Voulgaris, while heuristically we expect to find a shortest vector in time $$2^{0.268n + o(n)}$$ , improving upon the classical time complexity of $$2^{0.298n + o(n)}$$ of Laarhoven and De Weger. These quantum complexities will be an important guide for the selection of parameters for post-quantum cryptosystems based on the hardness of the shortest vector problem.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations91
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDesigns Codes and CryptographySame topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207