MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403513238 · doi:10.3390/math12203258

Elimination Algorithms for Skew Polynomials with Applications in Cybersecurity

2024· article· en· W4403513238 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Raqeeb Rasheed, Ali Safaa Sadiq, Omprakash Kaiwartya

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPolynomial and algebraic computation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTrent UniversityNottingham Trent University
KeywordsSkewAlgorithmComputer scienceMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is evident that skew polynomials offer promising directions for developing cryptographic schemes. This paper focuses on exploring skew polynomials and studying their properties with the aim of exploring their potential applications in fields such as cryptography and combinatorics. We begin by deriving the concept of resultants for bivariate skew polynomials. Then, we employ the derived resultant to incrementally eliminate indeterminates in skew polynomial systems, utilising both direct and modular approaches. Finally, we discuss some applications of the derived resultant, including cryptographic schemes (such as Diffie–Hellman) and combinatorial identities (such as Pascal’s identity). We start by considering a bivariate skew polynomial system with two indeterminates; our intention is to isolate and eliminate one of the indeterminates to reduce the system to a simpler form (that is, relying only on one indeterminate in this case). The methodology is composed of two main techniques; in the first technique, we apply our definition of a (bivariate) resultant via a Sylvester-style matrix directly from the polynomials’ coefficients, while the second is based on modular methods where we compute the resultant by using evaluation and interpolation approaches. The idea of this second technique is that instead of computing the resultant directly from the coefficients, we propose to evaluate the polynomials at a set of valid points to compute its corresponding set of partial resultants first; then, we can deduce the original resultant by combining all these partial resultants using an interpolation technique by utilising a theorem we have established.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematicsSame topicPolynomial and algebraic computationFrench-language works237,207