MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951114148

Comparing Two Pairing-Based Aggregate Signature Schemes.

2009· preprint· en· W2951114148 on OpenAlexaff
Sanjit Chatterjee, Darrel Hankerson, Edward Knapp, Alfred Menezes

Bibliographic record

VenueIACR Cryptology ePrint Archive · 2009
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Data Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandom oraclePairingBilinear interpolationComputer scienceScheme (mathematics)Signature (topology)OraclePublic-key cryptographyMathematicsComputer securityEncryptionPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. In 2003, Boneh, Gentry, Lynn and Shacham (BGLS) devised the first provably-secure aggregate signature scheme. Their scheme uses bilinear pairings and their security proof is in the random oracle model. The first pairing-based aggregate signature scheme which has a security proof that does not make the random oracle assumption was proposed in 2006 by Lu, Ostrovsky, Sahai, Shacham and Waters (LOSSW). In this paper, we compare the security and efficiency of the BGLS and LOSSW schemes when asymmetric pairings derived from Barreto-Naehrig (BN) elliptic curves are employed. 1.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
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 score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0010.004
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIACR Cryptology ePrint ArchiveSame topicCryptography and Data SecurityFrench-language works237,207