Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the rapid advance in quantum computing, quantum security is now an indispensable property for any cryptographic system. In this paper, we study how to prove the security of a complex cryptographic system in the quantum random oracle model. We first give a variant of Zhandry’s compressed quantum random oracle (CStO), called compressed quantum random oracle with adaptive special points (CStOs). Then, we extend the on-line extraction technique of Don et al (EUROCRYPT’22) from CStO to CStOs. We also extend the random experiment technique of Liu and Zhandry (CRYPTO’19) for extracting the CStO query that witnesses the future adversarial output. With these preparations, a systematic security proof in the quantum random oracle model can start with a random CStO experiment (that extracts the witness for the future adversarial output) and then convert this game to one involving CStOs. Next, the on-line extraction technique for CStOs can be applied to extract the witness for any on-line commitment. With this strategy, we give a security proof of our recent compact multi-signature framework that is converted from any weakly secure linear ID scheme. We also prove the quantum security of our recent lattice realization of this linear ID scheme, by iteratively applying the weakly collapsing protocol technique of Liu and Zhandry (CRYPTO 2019). Combining these two results, we obtain the first quantum security proof for a compact multi-signature.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".