MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2893614166 · doi:10.3934/amc.2018044

Computing discrete logarithms in cryptographically-interesting characteristic-three finite fields

2018· article· en· W2893614166 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Mathematics of Communications · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCoding theory and cryptography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscrete logarithmFinite fieldMathematicsLogarithmComputationField (mathematics)Discrete mathematicsPolynomialPure mathematicsAlgorithmMathematical analysisComputer sciencePublic-key cryptography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 2013 there have been several developments in algorithms for computing discrete logarithms in small-characteristic finite fields, culminating in a quasi-polynomial algorithm. In this paper, we report on our successful computation of discrete logarithms in the cryptographically-interesting characteristic-three finite field $\mathbb{F}_{3^{6.509}}$ using these new algorithms; prior to 2013, it was believed that this field enjoyed a security level of 128 bits. We also show that a recent idea of Guillevic can be used to compute discrete logarithms in the cryptographically-interesting finite field $\mathbb{F}_{3^{6.709}}$ using essentially the same resources as we expended on the $\mathbb{F}_{3^{6.509}}$ computation. Finally, we argue that discrete logarithms in the finite field $\mathbb{F}_{3^{6.1429}}$ can feasibly be computed today; this is significant because this cryptographically-interesting field was previously believed to enjoy a security level of 192 bits.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.291 · 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