MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2984654445 · doi:10.1049/iet-ifs.2018.5288

Choosing subfields for LUOV and lifting fields for rainbow

2019· article· en· W2984654445 on OpenAlexaff
Le Van Luyen, Ha Thanh Nguyen Tran

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Information Security · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPolynomial and algebraic computation
Canadian institutionsConcordia University of Edmonton
FundersViet Nam National University Ho Chi Minh City
KeywordsRainbowNISTPublic-key cryptographyBinary numberCryptographySignature (topology)Key (lock)Scheme (mathematics)Computer scienceMultivariate statisticsField (mathematics)MathematicsTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmArithmeticComputer securityStatisticsSpeech recognitionPhysicsOpticsEncryptionPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multivariate public key cryptography is one of the main candidates for post‐quantum cryptography. Rainbow, an improved (multi‐layer) version of unbalanced oil and vinegar (UOV), is one of the most famous multivariate signature schemes that is a promising candidate for NIST standardisation. At INDOCRYPT 2017, Beullens and Preneel introduced a new variant LUOV of UOV. Their idea is to generate a UOV scheme over the binary field and then lift it into a bigger field and hence dramatically reduce the public key size. In this study, the authors first theoretically deduce the choice for the subfield L (which is different from ) which results in smaller signature sizes (up to 40%). Moreover, they extend the idea to Rainbow and theoretically yield the optimal choice for the subfield L over which a Rainbow is generated before being lifted to K . As a result, they can reduce the public key size of the obtained Rainbow scheme up to at least 36%.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 venueIET Information SecuritySame topicPolynomial and algebraic computationFrench-language works237,207