Failing to Hash Into Supersingular Isogeny Graphs
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
Abstract An important open problem in supersingular isogeny-based cryptography is to produce, without a trusted authority, concrete examples of ‘hard supersingular curves’ that is equations for supersingular curves for which computing the endomorphism ring is as difficult as it is for random supersingular curves. A related open problem is to produce a hash function to the vertices of the supersingular $\ell $-isogeny graph, which does not reveal the endomorphism ring, or a path to a curve of known endomorphism ring. Such a hash function would open up interesting cryptographic applications. In this paper, we document a number of (thus far) failed attempts to solve this problem, in the hope that we may spur further research, and shed light on the challenges and obstacles to this endeavour. The mathematical approaches contained in this article include: (i) iterative root-finding for the supersingular polynomial; (ii) gcd’s of specialized modular polynomials; (iii) using division polynomials to create small systems of equations; (iv) taking random walks in the isogeny graph of abelian surfaces, and applying Kummer surfaces and (v) using quantum random walks.
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 | 0.001 | 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