MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949361893

Localised Multisecret Sharing.

2015· preprint· en· W2949361893 on OpenAlexaff
Thalia M. Laing, Keith M. Martin, Maura B. Paterson, Douglas R. Stinson

Bibliographic record

VenueBIROn (Birkbeck, University of London) · 2015
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Data Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScheme (mathematics)Range (aeronautics)Set (abstract data type)Key (lock)Context (archaeology)Information sharingSecret sharingOrder (exchange)Supply chainTheoretical computer scienceComputer securityMathematicsCryptographyBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A localised multisecret sharing scheme is a multisecret sharing scheme for an ordered set of players in which players in the smallest sets who are authorised to access secrets are close together in the underlying ordering. We define threshold versions of localised multisecret sharing schemes, we provide lower bounds on the share size of perfect localised multisecret sharing schemes in an information theoretic setting, and we give explicit constructions of schemes to show that these bounds are tight. We then analyse a range of approaches to relaxing the model that provide trade-offs between the share size and the level of security guarantees provided by the scheme, in order to permit the construction of schemes with smaller shares. We show how these techniques can be used in the context of an application to key distribution for RFID-based supply-chain management motivated by the proposal of Juels, Pappu and Parno from USENIX 2008.

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)0.005
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.005

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueBIROn (Birkbeck, University of London)Same topicCryptography and Data SecurityFrench-language works237,207