Pool: A Practical OT-based OPRF from Learning with Rounding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose Pool: a conceptually simple post-quantum (PQ) oblivious pseudorandom function (OPRF) protocol, that is round-optimal (with input-independent preprocessing), practically efficient, and has security based on the well-understood hardness of the learning with rounding (LWR) problem. Specifically, our design permits oblivious computation of the LWR-based pseudorandom function Fsk(x) = ⌉ H(x)⊤ ⋅ sk ⌋q,p, for random oracle H: {0,1} * → ℤ qn and uniformly chosen sk∈ {0,1} n. For 128-bits of semi-honest security, the Pool OPRF has an online communication cost of 11.9 kB, and a computational runtime of less than 3 ms on a single thread (via an open-source software implementation). This is more efficient (in either online communication cost or runtime) than constructions from well-known PQ PRFs, and is competitive even with constructions that only conjecture PQ security on lesser-known assumptions. As a result, our design gives high-performance, post-quantum variants of established OPRF applications in multi-party computation and private set operation protocols.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".