MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976919315 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1909.12338

Hardware Design and Analysis of the ACE and WAGE Ciphers

2019· preprint· en· W2976919315 on OpenAlexaff
Mark D. Aagaard, Marat Sattarov, Nuša Zidarič

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptographic Implementations and Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApplication-specific integrated circuitComputer scienceEncryptionCryptographyAuthenticated encryptionBlock cipherNISTWageThroughputComputer hardwareEmbedded systemAlgorithmComputer networkTelecommunicationsEconomicsWireless

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the hardware design and analysis of ACE and WAGE, two candidate ciphers for the NIST Lightweight Cryptography standardization. Both ciphers use sLiSCP's unified sponge duplex mode. ACE has an internal state of 320 bits, uses three 64 bit Simeck boxes, and implements both authenticated encryption and hashing. WAGE is based on the Welch-Gong stream cipher and provides authenticated encryption. WAGE has 259 bits of state, two 7 bit Welch-Gong permutations, and four lightweight 7 bit S-boxes. ACE and WAGE have the same external interface and follow the same I/O protocol to transition between phases. The paper illustrates how a hardware perspective influenced key aspects of the ACE and WAGE algorithms. The paper reports area, power, and energy results for both serial and parallel (unrolled) implementations using four different ASIC libraries: two 65 nm libraries, a 90 nm library, and a 130 nm library. ACE implementations range from a throughput of 0.5 bits-per-clock cycle (bpc) and an area of 4210 GE (averaged across the four ASIC libraries) up to 4 bpc and 7260 GE. WAGE results range from 0.57 bpc with 2920 GE to 4.57 bpc with 11080 GE.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.128 · 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
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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicCryptographic Implementations and SecurityFrench-language works237,207