MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036444063 · doi:10.1515/jmc-2015-0056

New Techniques for SIDH-based NIKE

2020· article· en· W3036444063 on OpenAlexafffund
David Urbanik, David Jao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematical Cryptology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Residue Arithmetic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanada First Research Excellence FundPublic Works and Government Services CanadaRoyal Bank of Canada
KeywordsKey exchangeComputer scienceIsogenyAdversaryKey (lock)Computer securityPublic-key cryptographyProtocol (science)NikeCryptographyDiffie–Hellman key exchangeMathematicsElliptic curveAdvertising

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We consider the problem of producing an efficient, practical, quantum-resistant non-interactive key exchange (NIKE) protocol based on Supersingular Isogeny Diffie-Hellman (SIDH). An attack of Galbraith, Petit, Shani and Ti rules out the use of naïve forms of the SIDH construction for this application, as they showed that an adversary can recover private key information when supplying an honest party with malformed public keys. Subsequently, Azarderakhsh, Jao and Leonardi presented a method for overcoming this attack using multiple instances of the SIDH protocol, but which increases the costs associated with performing a key exchange by factors of up to several thousand at typical security levels. In this paper, we present two new techniques to reduce the cost of SIDH-based NIKE, with various possible tradeoffs between key size and computational cost.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.249 · 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
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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mathematical CryptologySame topicCryptography and Residue ArithmeticFrench-language works237,207