MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949753337

Weakness of F 3 6*1429 and F 2 4*3041 for Discrete Logarithm Cryptography.

2013· preprint· en· W2949753337 on OpenAlex
Gora Adj, Alfred Menezes, Thomaz Oliveira, Francisco Rodríguez‐Henríquez

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

VenueIACR Cryptology ePrint Archive · 2013
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Residue Arithmetic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscrete logarithmLogarithmComputer scienceCryptographyEmbeddingFinite fieldBilinear interpolationDiscrete mathematicsMathematicsAlgorithmPublic-key cryptographyComputer securityArtificial intelligenceEncryptionMathematical analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past two years, there have been several dramatic improvements in algorithms for computing discrete logarithms in small-characteristic finite fields. In this paper, we examine the effectiveness of these new algorithms for computing discrete logarithms in F 3 6 ? 1429 and F 2 4 ? 3041 . The intractability of the discrete logarithm problem in these fields is necessary for the security of bilinear pairings derived from supersingular curves with embedding degree 6 and 4 defined, respectively, over F 3 1429 and F 2 3041 ; these curves were believed to enjoy a security level of 192 bits against attacks by Coppersmith's algorithm. Our analysis shows that these pairings offer security levels of at most 96 and 129 bits, respectively, leading us to conclude that they are dead for pairing-based cryptography.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.242 · 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