Bibliographic record
Abstract
A threshold signature scheme allows distributing a signing key to <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>n</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> users, such that any <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>t</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> of them can jointly sign, but any <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>t</mml:mi> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> cannot. It is desirable to prove adaptive security of threshold signature schemes, which considers adversaries that can adaptively corrupt honest users even after interacting with them. For a class of signatures that relies on security proofs with rewinding, such as Schnorr signatures, proving adaptive security entails significant challenges. This work proposes two threshold signature schemes that are provably adaptively secure with rewinding proofs. Our proofs are solely in the random oracle model (ROM), without relying on the algebraic group model (AGM). - We give a 3-round scheme based on the algebraic one-more discrete logarithm (AOMDL) assumption. The scheme outputs a standard Schnorr signature. - We give a 2-round scheme based on the DL assumption. Signatures output by the scheme contain one more scalar than a Schnorr signature. We follow the recent work by Katsumata, Reichle, and Takemure (Crypto 2024) that proposed the first threshold signature scheme with a rewinding proof of full adaptive security. Their scheme is a 5-round threshold Schnorr scheme based on the DL assumption. Our results significantly improve the round complexity. The protocol by Katsumata, Reichle, and Takemure can be viewed as applying a masking technique to Sparkle, a threshold Schnorr signature scheme by Crites, Komlo, and Maller (Crypto 2023). This work shows wider applications of the masking technique. Our first scheme is obtained by masking FROST, a threshold Schnorr protocol by Komlo and Goldberg (SAC 2020). The second scheme is obtained by masking a threshold version of HBMS, a multi-signature scheme by Bellare and Dai (Asiacrypt 2021). Katsumata, Reichle, and Takemure masked Sparkle at the cost of 2 additional rounds. Our main insight is that this cost varies across schemes, especially depending on how to simulate signing in the security proofs. The cost is 1 extra round for our first scheme, and is 0 for our second scheme.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".