MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036855880 · doi:10.1515/jmc-2015-0057

A subexponential-time, polynomial quantum space algorithm for inverting the CM group action

2020· article· en· W3036855880 on OpenAlexafffund
David Jao, Jason T. LeGrow, Christopher Leonardi, Luis Marco Ruiz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematical Cryptology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Residue Arithmetic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersBanff International Research Station for Mathematical Innovation and DiscoveryCanada First Research Excellence FundPublic Works and Government Services CanadaRoyal Bank of Canada
KeywordsIsogenyMathematicsPolynomialGroup (periodic table)Quantum algorithmAction (physics)Quantum computerTime complexityQuantumCryptosystemMultiplication (music)Group actionDiscrete mathematicsSpace (punctuation)AlgorithmAlgebra over a fieldElliptic curveCombinatoricsPure mathematicsComputer scienceCryptographyMathematical analysisQuantum mechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present a quantum algorithm which computes group action inverses of the complex multiplication group action on isogenous ordinary elliptic curves, using subexponential time, but only polynomial quantum space. One application of this algorithm is that it can be used to find the private key from the public key in the isogeny-based CRS and CSIDH cryptosystems. Prior claims by Childs, Jao, and Soukharev of such a polynomial quantum space algorithm for this problem are false; our algorithm (along with contemporaneous, independent work by Biasse, Iezzi, and Jacobson) is the first such result.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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