MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407193070 · doi:10.3390/cryptography9010012

DGMT: A Fully Dynamic Group Signature from Symmetric-Key Primitives

2025· article· en· W4407193070 on OpenAlexafffund
Mojtaba Fadavi, Sabyasachi Karati, Reihaneh Safavi–Naini

Bibliographic record

VenueCryptography · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSignature (topology)Key (lock)Group (periodic table)Group signatureComputer scienceMathematicsComputer securityPhysicsPublic-key cryptographyEncryptionGeometryQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A group signature scheme allows a user to sign a message anonymously on behalf of a group and provides accountability by using an opening authority who can “open” a signature and reveal the signer’s identity. Group signature schemes have been widely used in privacy-preserving applications, including anonymous attestation and anonymous authentication. Fully dynamic group signature schemes allow new members to join the group and existing members to be revoked if needed. Symmetric-key based group signature schemes are post-quantum group signatures whose security rely on the security of symmetric-key primitives, and cryptographic hash functions. In this paper, we design a symmetric-key based fully dynamic group signature scheme, called DGMT, that redesigns DGM (Buser et al. ESORICS 2019) and removes its two important shortcomings that limit its application in practice: (i) interaction with the group manager for signature verification, and (ii) the need for storing and managing an unacceptably large amount of data by the group manager. We prove security of DGMT (unforgeability, anonymity, and traceability) and give a full implementation of the system. Compared to all known post-quantum group signature schemes with the same security level, DGMT has the shortest signature size. We also analyze DGM signature revocation approach and show that despite its conceptual novelty, it has significant hidden costs that makes it much more costly than using the traditional revocation list 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 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCryptographySame topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207