MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122079212 · doi:10.1109/allerton.2008.4797698

Unconditionally secure conference key distribution: Security definitions and their relations

2008· article· en· W2122079212 on OpenAlexaff
Reihaneh Safavi–Naini, Shaoquan Jiang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSecurity in Wireless Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdversaryComputer scienceComputer securityKey (lock)Adversary modelComputer security modelScheme (mathematics)Provable securityConcrete securityCryptographyTheoretical computer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A non-interactive conference key distribution scheme (NICKDS) is a system that allows selected sets of users to securely share a common key without interacting with each other. In this paper, we consider unconditionally secure setting where the is no limit on adversary's computation power. Unconditionally secure NICKDS has been considered with security against an adversary who can corrupt up to w users. We strengthen the security model of the system by allowing the adversary to also obtain conference keys of conferences whose members are honest, and use a game bases approach to define security. We give two other ways of defining security, using probability distance and mutual information and show the relationship between the three definitions of security.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.011
Scholarly communication0.0080.018
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0030.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.178 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSecurity in Wireless Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207