MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121368353 · doi:10.1109/indcon.2009.5409481

Secure Group Authentication Using a Non-Perfect Secret Sharing Scheme Based on Controlled Mixing

2009· article· en· W2121368353 on OpenAlexaff
Kannan Karthik, Dimitrios Hatzinakos

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBiometric Identification and Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSecret sharingShamir's Secret SharingInformation leakageComputer scienceComputer securityHomomorphic secret sharingBiometricsAuthentication (law)Verifiable secret sharingScheme (mathematics)Secure multi-party computationLeakage (economics)CryptographyTheoretical computer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In perfect secret sharing schemes, invalid coalitions of shares do not reveal any information regarding the secret. However, in secret sharing constructions which are non-perfect in nature, every illegitimate coalition leaks out information not just pertaining to the parent secret but also related to other shares in circulation. In this paper the information flow and leakage through shares generated by a non-perfect scheme called MIX-SPLIT is examined with the help of a geometric model, developed with a 3-out-of-3 sharing example in view. Finally the principle of controlled leakage has been applied towards a secure biometric-based group authentication system. No fingerprint template storage is required and access to the respective user biometric PINs are made completely secure.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBiometric Identification and SecurityFrench-language works237,207