MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400650105 · doi:10.1145/3666000.3669712

SAT and Lattice Reduction for Integer Factorization

2024· article· en· W4400650105 on OpenAlexaff
Yameen Ajani, Curtis Bright

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topicgraph theory and CDMA systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersUniversitas Brawijaya
KeywordsLattice reductionFactorizationReduction (mathematics)Integer (computer science)Lattice (music)Integer latticeInteger factorizationComputer scienceCombinatoricsMathematicsDiscrete mathematicsAlgorithmPhysicsCondensed matter physicsHalf-integerStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The difficulty of factoring large integers into primes is the basis for cryptosystems such as RSA. Due to the widespread popularity of RSA, there have been many proposed attacks on the factorization problem such as side-channel attacks where some bits of the prime factors are available. When enough bits of the prime factors are known, two methods that are effective at solving the factorization problem are satisfiability (SAT) solvers and Coppersmith’s method. The SAT approach reduces the factorization problem to a Boolean satisfiability problem, while Coppersmith’s approach uses lattice basis reduction. Both methods have their advantages, but they also have their limitations: Coppersmith’s method does not apply when the known bit positions are randomized, while SAT-based methods can take advantage of known bits in arbitrary locations, but have no knowledge of the algebraic structure exploited by Coppersmith’s method. In this paper we describe a new hybrid SAT and computer algebra approach to efficiently solve random leaked-bit factorization problems. Specifically, Coppersmith’s method is invoked by a SAT solver to determine whether a partial bit assignment can be extended to a complete assignment. Our hybrid implementation solves random leaked-bit factorization problems significantly faster than either a pure SAT or pure computer algebra approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicgraph theory and CDMA systemsFrench-language works237,207