A Comparative Study on Post-Quantum Cryptographic Digital Signature Algorithms: Network Performance, Key Robustness, and Energy Consumption.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The significance of Post Quantum Cryptography (PQC) becomes pronounced with the impending quantum computer era. PQC employs security techniques effective against attacks from both classical and quantum computers. Urgency lies in promptly implementing PQC solutions to counter potential vulnerabilities. This research delves into diverse Post Quantum Cryptography (PQC) digital signature algorithms, assessing their strength against brute force attacks, network performance, and energy usage. The study also focuses on the MPPK/DS (Multivariate Polynomial Public Key Digital Signature) algorithm, generating Python code and assessing resilience through semi-covariance correlation analysis highlighting its strength over RSA and SPHINCS. Latency performance on 5G, WIFI, and LAN is examined, emphasizing practicality. Additionally, the research addresses energy consumption of all the PQC NIST-selected digital signature algorithms, underlining cryptographic solutions compatible with resource-constrained intelligent networks. These contributions offer vital insights, openly shared with the research community to foster comparisons and advancements in PQC algorithms.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".