On the Derivative Imbalance and Ambiguity of Functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2007, Carlet and Ding introduced two parameters, denoted by $Nb_F$ and $NB_F$, quantifying respectively the balancedness of general functions $F$ between finite Abelian groups and the (global) balancedness of their derivatives $D_a F(x)=F(x+a)-F(x)$, $a\in G\setminus\{0\}$ (providing an indicator of the nonlinearity of the functions). These authors studied the properties and cryptographic significance of these two measures. They provided for S-boxes inequalities relating the nonlinearity $\mathcal{NL}(F)$ to $NB_F$, and obtained in particular an upper bound on the nonlinearity which unifies Sidelnikov-Chabaud-Vaudenay's bound and the covering radius bound. At the Workshop WCC 2009 and in its postproceedings in 2011, a further study of these parameters was made; in particular, the first parameter was applied to the functions $F+L$ where $L$ is affine, providing more nonlinearity parameters. In 2010, motivated by the study of Costas arrays, two parameters called ambiguity and deficiency were introduced by Panario \emph{et al.} for permutations over finite Abelian groups to measure the injectivity and surjectivity of the derivatives respectively. These authors also studied some fundamental properties and cryptographic significance of these two measures. Further studies followed without that the second pair of parameters be compared to the first one. In the present paper, we observe that ambiguity is the same parameter as $NB_F$, up to additive and multiplicative constants (i.e. up to rescaling). We make the necessary work of comparison and unification of the results on $NB_F$, respectively on ambiguity, which have been obtained in the five papers devoted to these parameters. We generalize some known results to any Abelian groups and we more importantly derive many new results on these parameters.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".