MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200554845 · doi:10.3390/a14120362

Faster Provable Sieving Algorithms for the Shortest Vector Problem and the Closest Vector Problem on Lattices in ℓp Norm

2021· article· en· W4200554845 on OpenAlexaff
Priyanka Mukhopadhyay

Bibliographic record

VenueAlgorithms · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Data Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNorm (philosophy)MathematicsAlgorithmLattice problemComputer scienceCombinatoricsMathematical optimizationDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, we give provable sieving algorithms for the Shortest Vector Problem (SVP) and the Closest Vector Problem (CVP) on lattices in ℓp norm (1≤p≤∞). The running time we obtain is better than existing provable sieving algorithms. We give a new linear sieving procedure that works for all ℓp norm (1≤p≤∞). The main idea is to divide the space into hypercubes such that each vector can be mapped efficiently to a sub-region. We achieve a time complexity of 22.751n+o(n), which is much less than the 23.849n+o(n) complexity of the previous best algorithm. We also introduce a mixed sieving procedure, where a point is mapped to a hypercube within a ball and then a quadratic sieve is performed within each hypercube. This improves the running time, especially in the ℓ2 norm, where we achieve a time complexity of 22.25n+o(n), while the List Sieve Birthday algorithm has a running time of 22.465n+o(n). We adopt our sieving techniques to approximation algorithms for SVP and CVP in ℓp norm (1≤p≤∞) and show that our algorithm has a running time of 22.001n+o(n), while previous algorithms have a time complexity of 23.169n+o(n).

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)0.014
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.010
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.004

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlgorithmsSame topicCryptography and Data SecurityFrench-language works237,207