Towards constant-time probabilistic root finding for code-based cryptography
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In code-based cryptography, deterministic algorithms are used in the root-finding step of the decryption process. However, probabilistic algorithms are more time efficient than deterministic ones for large fields. These algorithms can be useful for long-term security where larger parameters are relevant. Still, current probabilistic root-finding algorithms suffer from time variations making them susceptible to timing side-channel attacks. To prevent these attacks, we propose a countermeasure to a probabilistic root-finding algorithm so that its execution time does not depend on the degree of the input polynomial but on the cryptosystem parameters. We compare the performance of our proposed algorithm to other root-finding algorithms already used in code-based cryptography. In general, our method is faster than the straightforward algorithm in Classic McEliece. The results also show the range of degrees in larger finite fields where our proposed algorithm is faster than the Additive Fast Fourier Transform algorithm.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it