MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128802035 · doi:10.1090/fic/060/05

Pairings on hyperelliptic curves

2011· preprint· en· W2128802035 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer S. Balakrishnan, Juliana Belding, Sarah Chisholm, Kirsten Eisenträger, Katherine E. Stange, Edlyn Teske

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Residue Arithmetic
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperelliptic curveHyperelliptic curve cryptographyMathematicsComputer sciencePure mathematicsAlgebra over a fieldOperating systemElliptic curve cryptography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We assemble and reorganize the recent work in the area of hyperelliptic pairings: We survey the research on constructing hyperelliptic curves suitable for pairing-based cryptography.We also showcase the hyperelliptic pairings proposed to date, and develop a unifying framework.We discuss the techniques used to optimize the pairing computation on hyperelliptic curves, and present many directions for further research.

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)0.004
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCryptography and Residue ArithmeticFrench-language works237,207