Bibliographic record
Abstract
Group authentication is a technique that verifies the group membership of multiple users and establishes a shared secret key among them. Unlike the conventional authentication schemes that rely on a central authority to authenticate each user individually, group authentication can perform the authentication process simultaneously for all the members who participate. Group authentication has been found to be a suitable candidate for various applications in crowded in Internet of Things (IoT) environments, such as swarms of drones for agriculture, military, and surveillance, where a group of devices need to establish a secure authenticated communication channel among themselves. The recently presented group authentication algorithms mainly exploit Lagrange polynomial interpolation along with elliptic curve groups over finite fields. A polynomial interpolation-based group authentication scheme (GAS) has a vulnerability that allows malicious interruption by any single entity in the process. Moreover, this scheme requires each entity to obtain the tokens of all other entities, which is impractical in a large-scale setting. The cost of authentication and key establishment also depends on the number of users, creating a scalability issue. As a fresh approach to eliminate these issues, this work suggests the use of inner product spaces for group authentication and key establishment. The approach with linear spaces introduces a reduced computation and communication load to establish a common shared key among the group members. In addition to providing lightweight authentication and key agreement, this approach allows any user in a group to make a nonmember a member, which is expected to be useful for autonomous systems in the future. The scheme is designed in a way that the sponsors of such members can easily be recognized by anyone in the group. Unlike the other GASs based on Lagrange’s polynomial interpolation, the proposed scheme does not provide a tool for adversaries to compromise the whole group’s secrets by using only a few members’ shares as well as it allows to recognize a nonmember easily, which prevents the denial-of-service attacks from which the former group authentication algorithms suffer.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.014 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".