71 research outputs found
FPGA Benchmarking of Round 2 Candidates in the NIST Lightweight Cryptography Standardization Process: Methodology, Metrics, Tools, and Results
Twenty seven Round 2 candidates in the NIST Lightweight Cryptography (LWC) process have been implemented in hardware by groups from all over the world. All implementations compliant with the LWC Hardware API, proposed in 2019, have been submitted for hardware benchmarking to George Mason Universityâs LWC benchmarking team. The received submissions were first verified for correct functionality and compliance with the hardware APIâs specification. Then, the execution times in clock cycles, as a function of input sizes, have been determined using behavioral simulation. An overhead of modifying vs. reusing a key between two consecutive inputs was quantified. The compatibility of all implementations with FPGA toolsets from three major vendors, Xilinx, Intel, and Lattice Semiconductor was verified. Optimized values of the maximum clock frequency and resource utilization metrics, such as the number of look-up tables (LUTs) and flip-flops (FFs), were obtained by running optimization tools, such as Minerva, ATHENa, and Xeda. The raw post-place and route results were then converted into values of the corresponding throughputs for long, medium-size, and short inputs. The overhead of modifying vs. reusing a key between two consecutive inputs was quantified. Power consumption and energy per bit were estimated. The results were presented in the form of easy to interpret graphs and tables, demonstrating the relative performance of all investigated algorithms. For a few submissions, the results of the initial design-space exploration were illustrated as well. An effort was made to make the entire process as transparent as possible and results easily reproducible by other groups
Recommended from our members
Geologic history of Siletzia, a large igneous province in the Oregon and Washington Coast Range: Correlation to the geomagnetic polarity time scale and implications for a long-lived Yellowstone hotspot
Siletzia is a basaltic Paleocene and Eocene large igneous province in coastal Oregon, Washington, and southern Vancouver Island that was accreted to North America in the early Eocene. New U-Pb magmatic, detrital zircon, and âŽâ°Ar/ÂłâčAr ages constrained by detailed field mapping, global nannoplankton zones, and magnetic polarities allow correlation of the volcanics with the 2012 geologic time scale. The data show that Siletzia was rapidly erupted 56â49 Ma, during the Chron 25â22 plate reorganization in the northeast Pacific basin. Accretion was completed between 51 and 49 Ma in Oregon, based on CP11 (CPâCoccolith Paleogene zone) coccoliths in strata overlying onlapping continental sediments. Magmatism continued in the northern Oregon Coast Range until ca. 46 Ma with the emplacement of a regional sill complex during or shortly after accretion. Isotopic signatures similar to early Columbia River basalts, the great crustal thickness of Siletzia in Oregon, rapid eruption, and timing of accretion are consistent with offshore formation as an oceanic plateau. Approximately 8 m.y. after accretion, margin parallel extension of the forearc, emplacement of regional dike swarms, and renewed magmatism of the Tillamook episode peaked at 41.6 Ma (CP zone 14a; Chron 19r). We examine the origin of Siletzia and consider the possible role of a long-lived Yellowstone hotspot using the reconstruction in GPlates, an open source plate model. In most hotspot reference frames, the Yellowstone hotspot (YHS) is on or near an inferred northeast-striking Kula-Farallon and/or Resurrection-Farallon ridge between 60 and 50 Ma. In this configuration, the YHS could have provided a 56â49 Ma source on the Farallon plate for Siletzia, which accreted to North America by 50 Ma. A sister plateau, the Eocene basalt basement of the Yakutat terrane, now in Alaska, formed contemporaneously on the adjacent Kula (or Resurrection) plate and accreted to coastal British Columbia at about the same time. Following accretion of Siletzia, the leading edge of North America overrode the YHS ca. 42 Ma. The voluminous high-Ti basaltic to alkalic magmatism of the 42â35 Ma Tillamook episode and extension in the forearc may be related to the encounter with an active YHS. Clockwise rotation of western Oregon about a pole in the backarc has since moved the Tillamook center and underlying Siletzia northward ~250 km from the probable hotspot track on North America. In the reference frames we examined, the YHS arrives in the backarc ~5 m.y. too early to match the 17 Ma magmatic fl are-up commonly attributed to the YHS. We suggest that interaction with the subducting slab may have delayed arrival of the plume beneath the backarc.This is the publisherâs final pdf. The published article is copyrighted by the Geological Society of America and can be found at: http://geosphere.gsapubs.org
DAGS: Key encapsulation using dyadic GS codes
Code-based Cryptography is one of the main areas of interest for the Post-Quantum Cryptography Standardization call. In this paper, we introduce DAGS, a Key Encapsulation Mechanism (KEM) based on Quasi-Dyadic Generalized Srivastava codes. The scheme is proved to be IND-CCA secure in both Random Oracle Model and Quantum Random Oracle Model. We believe that DAGS will offer competitive performance, especially when compared with other existing code-based schemes, and represent a valid candidate for post-quantum standardizatio
DAGS:Key encapsulation using dyadic GS codes
Code-based cryptography is one of the main areas of interest for NIST's Post-Quantum Cryptography Standardization call. In this paper, we introduce DAGS, a Key Encapsulation Mechanism (KEM) based on quasi-dyadic generalized Srivastava codes. The scheme is proved to be IND-CCA secure in both random oracle model and quantum random oracle model. We believe that DAGS will offer competitive performance, especially when compared with other existing code-based schemes, and represent a valid candidate for post-quantum standardization.</p
Recommended from our members
Neuronal vulnerability and multilineage diversity in multiple sclerosis.
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a neuroinflammatory disease with a relapsing-remitting disease course at early stages, distinct lesion characteristics in cortical grey versus subcortical white matter and neurodegeneration at chronic stages. Here we used single-nucleus RNA sequencing to assess changes in expression in multiple cell lineages in MS lesions and validated the results using multiplex in situ hybridization. We found selective vulnerability and loss of excitatory CUX2-expressing projection neurons in upper-cortical layers underlying meningeal inflammation; such MS neuron populations exhibited upregulation of stress pathway genes and long non-coding RNAs. Signatures of stressed oligodendrocytes, reactive astrocytes and activated microglia mapped most strongly to the rim of MS plaques. Notably, single-nucleus RNA sequencing identified phagocytosing microglia and/or macrophages by their ingestion and perinuclear import of myelin transcripts, confirmed by functional mouse and human culture assays. Our findings indicate lineage- and region-specific transcriptomic changes associated with selective cortical neuron damage and glial activation contributing to progression of MS lesions.Includes NIHR, ERC and Wellcome Trust
What Stimulates Researchers to Make Their Research Usable? Towards an Openness Approach
Ambiguity surrounding the effect of external engagement on academic research has raised questions about what motivates researchers to collaborate with third parties. We argue that what matters for society is research that can be absorbed by users. We define openness as a willingness by researchers to make research more usable by external partners by responding to external influences in their own research practices. We ask what kinds of characteristics define those researchers who are more open to creating usable knowledge. Our empirical study analyses a sample of 1583 researchers working at the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC). Results demonstrate that it is personal factors (academic identity and past experience) that determine which researchers have open behaviours. The paper concludes that policies to encourage external engagement should focus on experiences which legitimate and validate knowledge produced through user encounters, both at the academic formation career stage as well as through providing ongoing opportunities to engage with third parties.The data used for this study comes from the IMPACTO project funded by the Spanish Council for Scientific Research - CSIC (Ref. 200410E639). The work also benefited from a mobility grant awarded by Eu-Spri Forum to Julia Olmos Penuela & Paul Benneworth for her visiting research to the Center of Higher Education Policy Studies. Finally, Julia Olmos Penuela also benefited from a post-doctoral grant funded by the Generalitat Valenciana (APOSTD-2014-A-006).Olmos-Peñuela, J.; Benneworth, P.; Castro-MartĂnez, E. (2015). What Stimulates Researchers to Make Their Research Usable? Towards an Openness Approach. Minerva. 53(4):381-410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-015-9283-4S381410534Abreu, Maria, Vadim Grinevich, Alan Hughes, and Michael Kitson. 2009. Knowledge exchange between academics and the business, public and third sectors. Cambridge: Centre for Business Research and UK-IRC.Aghion, Philippe, Mathias Dewatripont, and Jeremy C. Stein. 2008. Academic freedom, private-sector focus, and the process of innovation. RAND Journal of Economics 39: 617â635.Ajzen, Icek. 2001. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology 52(1): 27â58.AlrĂže, Hugo Fjelsted, and Erik Steen Kristensen. 2002. Towards a systemic research methodology in agriculture: Rethinking the role of values in science. Agriculture and Human Values 19(1): 3â23.Audretsch, David B., Werner Bönte, and Stefan Krabel. 2010. Why do scientists in public research institutions cooperate with private firms. In DRUID Working Paper, 10â27.Baldini, Nicola, Rosa Grimaldi, and Maurizio Sobrero. 2007. To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics 70(2): 333â354.Bandura, Albert. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Barnett, R. 2009. Knowing and becoming in the higher education curriculum. Studies in Higher Education 34(4): 429â440.Becher, Tony. 1994. The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education 19(2): 151â161.Becher, Tony, and Paul Trowler. 2001. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. McGraw-Hill International.Bekkers, Rudi, and Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas. 2008. Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy 37(10): 1837â1853.Belderbos, RenĂ©, Martin Carree, Bert Diederen, Boris Lokshin, and Reinhilde Veugelers. 2004. Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization 22(8): 1237â1263.Benner, Mats, and Ulf Sandström. 2000. Institutionalizing the triple helix: Research funding and norms in the academic system. Research Policy 29(2): 291â301.Bercovitz, Janet, and Maryann Feldman. 2008. Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science 19(1): 69â89.Berman, Elizabeth Popp. 2011. Creating the market university: How academic science became an economic engine. Princeton University Press.Bleiklie, Ivar, and Roar HĂžstaker. 2004. Modernizing research training-education and science policy between profession, discipline and academic institution. Higher Education Policy 17(2): 221â236.Bozeman, Barry, Daniel Fay, and Catherine P. Slade. 2013. Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer 38(1): 1â67.Collini, Stefan. 2009. Impact on humanities: Researchers must take a stand now or be judged and rewarded as salesmen. The Times Literary Supplement 5563: 18â19.DâEste, Pablo, and Markus Perkmann. 2011. Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer 36(3): 316â339.DâEste, Pablo, Oscar Llopis, and Alfredo Yegros. 2013. Conducting pro-social research: Cognitive diversity, research excellence and awareness about the social impact of research: INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series.Deem, Rosemary, and Lisa Lucas. 2007. Research and teaching cultures in two contrasting UK policy contexts: Academic life in education departments in five English and Scottish universities. Higher Education 54(1): 115â133.DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147â160.Downing, David B. 2005. The knowledge contract: Politics and paradigms in the academic workplace. Lincoln: Nebraska University of Nebraska Press.Donovan, Claire. 2007. The qualitative future of research evaluation. Science and Public Policy 34(8): 585â597.Durning, Bridget. 2004. Planning academics and planning practitioners: Two tribes or a community of practice? Planning Practice and Research 19(4): 435â446.Edquist, Charles. 1997. System of innovation approaches: Their emergence and characteristics. In Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations, ed. C. Edquist, 1â35. London: Pinter.Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and âMode 2â to a Triple Helix of universityâindustryâgovernment relations. Research Policy 29(2): 109â123.Fromhold-Eisebith, Martina, Claudia Werker, and Marcel Vojnic. 2014. Tracing the social dimension in innovation networks. In The social dynamics of innovation networks, eds. Roel Rutten, Paul Benneworth, Frans Boekema, and Dessy Irawati. London: Routledge (in press).Geuna, Aldo, and Alessandro Muscio. 2009. The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva 47(1): 93â114.Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.GlĂ€ser, Jochen. 2012. How does Governance change research content? On the possibility of a sociological middle-range theory linking science policy studies to the sociology of scientific knowledge. Technical University Berlin. Technology Studies Working Papers. http://www.ts.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/fg226/TUTS/TUTS-WP-1-2012.pdf . Accessed 16 Feb 2015.Goethner, Maximilian, Martin Obschonka, Rainer K. Silbereisen, and Uwe Cantner. 2012. Scientistsâ transition to academic entrepreneurship: Economic and psychological determinants. Journal of Economic Psychology 33(3): 628â641.Gulbrandsen, Magnus, and Jens-Christian Smeby. 2005. Industry funding and university professorsâ research performance. Research Policy 34(6): 932â950.Haeussler, Carolin, and Jeannette Colyvas. 2011. Breaking the ivory tower: Academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences in UK and Germany. Research Policy 40(1): 41â54.Hessels, Laurens K., Harro van Lente, John Grin, and Ruud E.H.M. Smits. 2011. Changing struggles for relevance in eight fields of natural science. Industry and Higher Education 25(5): 347â357.Hessels, Laurens K., and Harro Van Lente. 2008. Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy 37(4): 740â760.Hoye, Kate, and Fred Pries. 2009. âRepeat commercializersâ, the âhabitual entrepreneursâ of universityâindustry technology transfer. Technovation 29(10): 682â689.Jacobson, Nora, Dale Butterill, and Paula Goering. 2004. Organizational factors that influence university-based researchersâ engagement in knowledge transfer activities. Science Communication 25(3): 246â259.Jain, Sanjay, Gerard George, and Mark Maltarich. 2009. Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy 38(6): 922â935.Jasanoff, Sheila, and Sang-Hyun Kim. 2013. Sociotechnical imaginaries and national energy policies. Science as Culture 22(2): 189â196.Jensen, Pablo. 2011. A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understanding of Science 20(1): 26â36.Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1981. The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Kronenberg, Kristin, and Marjolein CaniĂ«ls. 2014. Professional proximity in research collaborations. In The social dynamics of innovation networks, eds. Roel Rutten, Paul Benneworth, Frans Boekema, and Dessy Irawati. London: Routledge (in press).Krueger, Rob, and David Gibbs. 2010. Competitive global city regions and sustainable developmentâ: An interpretive institutionalist account in the South East of England. Environment and planning A 42: 821â837.Lam, Alice. 2011. What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: âGoldâ, âribbonâ or âpuzzleâ? Research Policy 40(10): 1354â1368.Landry, RĂ©jean, Malek SaĂŻhi, Nabil Amara, and Mathieu Ouimet. 2010. Evidence on how academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities. Research Policy 39(10): 1387â1403.Lee, Alison, and David Boud. 2003. Writing groups, change and academic identity: Research development as local practice. Studies in Higher Education 28(2): 187â200.Lee, Yong S. 1996. âTechnology transferâ and the research university: A search for the boundaries of universityâindustry collaboration. Research Policy 25(6): 843â863.Lee, Yong S. 2000. The sustainability of universityâindustry research collaboration: An empirical assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer 25(2): 111â133.Leisyte, Liudvika, JĂŒrgen Enders, and Harry De Boer. 2008. The freedom to set research agendasâillusion and reality of the research units in the Dutch Universities. Higher Education Policy 21(3): 377â391.Louis, Karen Seashore, David Blumenthal, Michael E. Gluck, and Michael A. Stoto. 1989. Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly 34(1): 110â131.Lowe, Philip, Jeremy Phillipson, and Katy Wilkinson. 2013. Why social scientists should engage with natural scientists. Contemporary Social Science 8(3): 207â222.MartĂn-Sempere, MarĂa JosĂ©, BelĂ©n GarzĂłn-GarcĂa, and JesĂșs Rey-Rocha. 2008. Scientistsâ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair. Public Understanding of Science 17(3): 349â367.Martin, Ben. 2003. The changing social contract for science and the evolution of the university. In Science and innovation: Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance, eds. A. Geuna, A.J. Salter, and W.E. Steinmueller, 7â29. Cheltenhan: Edward Elgar.Merton, Robert K. 1973. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Miller, Thaddeus R., and Mark W. Neff. 2013. De-facto science policy in the making: how scientists shape science policy and why it matters (or, why STS and STP scholars should socialize). Minerva 51(3): 295â315.MuthĂ©n, Bengt O. 1998â2004. Mplus Technical Appendices. MuthĂ©n & MuthĂ©n. Los Angeles, CA.: MuthĂ©n & MuthĂ©n.Nedeva, Maria. 2013. Between the global and the national: Organising European science. Research Policy 42(1): 220â230.Neff, Mark William. 2014. Research prioritization and the potential pitfall of path dependencies in coral reef science. Minerva 52(2): 213â235.Nelson, Richard R. 2001. Observations on the post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer 26(1): 13â19.Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Olmos-Peñuela, Julia, Paul Benneworth, and Elena Castro-MartĂnez. 2014a. Are âSTEM from Mars and SSH from Venusâ? Challenging disciplinary stereotypes of researchâs social value. Science and Public Policy 41: 384â400.Olmos-Peñuela, Julia, Elena Castro-MartĂnez, and Manuel FernĂĄndez-Esquinas. 2014b. Diferencias entre ĂĄreas cientĂficas en las prĂĄcticas de divulgaciĂłn de la investigaciĂłn: un estudio empĂrico en el CSIC. Revista Española de DocumentaciĂłn CientĂfica. doi: 10.3989/redc.2014.2.1096 .Ouimet, Mathieu, Nabil Amara, RĂ©jean Landry, and John Lavis. 2007. Direct interactions medical school faculty members have with professionals and managers working in public and private sector organizations: A cross-sectional study. Scientometrics 72(2): 307â323.Perkmann, Markus, Valentina Tartari, Maureen McKelvey, Erkko Autio, Anders Brostrom, Pablo DâEste, Riccardo Fini, et al. 2013. Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy 42(2): 423â442.Philpott, Kevin, Lawrence Dooley, Caroline OâReilly, and Gary Lupton. 2011. The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation 31(4): 161â170.Rutten, Roel, and Frans Boekema. 2012. From learning region to learning in a socio-spatial context. Regional Studies 46(8): 981â992.Sarewitz, Daniel, and Roger A. Pielke. 2007. The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science & Policy 10(1): 5â16.Sauermann, Henry, and Paula Stephan. 2013. Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and academic science. Organization Science 24(3): 889â909.Schein, Edgar H. 1985. Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Shane, Scott. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science 11(4): 448â469.Spaapen, Jack, and Leonie van Drooge. 2011. Introducing âproductive interactionsâ in social impact assessment. Research Evaluation 20(3): 211â218.Stokes, Donald E. 1997. Pasteurâs quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Tartari, Valentina, and Stefano Breschi. 2012. Set them free: scientistsâ evaluations of the benefits and costs of universityâindustry research collaboration. Industrial and Corporate Change 21(5): 1117â1147.Tinker, Tony, and Rob Gray. 2003. Beyond a critique of pure reason: From policy to politics to praxis in environmental and social research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 16(5): 727â761.van Rijnsoever, Frank J., Laurens K. Hessels, and Rens L.J. Vandeberg. 2008. A resource-based view on the interactions of university researchers. Research Policy 37(8): 1255â1266.Venkataraman, Sankaran. 1997. The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editorâs perspective. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth 3: 119â138.Verspagen, Bart. 2006. University research, intellectual property rights and European innovation systems. Journal of Economic Surveys 20(4): 607â632.Villanueva-Felez, Africa, Jordi Molas-Gallart, and Alejandro EscribĂĄ-Esteve. 2013. Measuring personal networks and their relationship with scientific production. Minerva 51(4): 465â483.Watermeyer, Richard. 2015. Lost in the âthird spaceâ: the impact of public engagement in higher education on academic identity, research practice and career progression. European Journal of Higher Education (online first, doi: 10.1080/21568235.2015.1044546 ).Weingart, Peter. 2009. Editorial for Issue 47/3. Minerva 47(3): 237â239.Ziman, John. 1996. âPostacademic scienceâ: Constructing knowledge with networks and norms. Science Studies 1: 67â80.Zomer, Arend H., Ben W.A. Jongbloed, and JĂŒrgen Enders. 2010. Do spin-offs make the academicsâ heads spin? The impacts of spin-off companies on their parent research organisation. Minerva 48(3): 331â353
Genetic effects on gene expression across human tissues
Characterization of the molecular function of the human genome and its variation across individuals is essential for identifying the cellular mechanisms that underlie human genetic traits and diseases. The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project aims to characterize variation in gene expression levels across individuals and diverse tissues of the human body, many of which are not easily accessible. Here we describe genetic effects on gene expression levels across 44 human tissues. We find that local genetic variation affects gene expression levels for the majority of genes, and we further identify inter-chromosomal genetic effects for 93 genes and 112 loci. On the basis of the identified genetic effects, we characterize patterns of tissue specificity, compare local and distal effects, and evaluate the functional properties of the genetic effects. We also demonstrate that multi-tissue, multi-individual data can be used to identify genes and pathways affected by human disease-associated variation, enabling a mechanistic interpretation of gene regulation and the genetic basis of diseas
Genetic effects on gene expression across human tissues
Characterization of the molecular function of the human genome and its variation across individuals is essential for identifying the cellular mechanisms that underlie human genetic traits and diseases. The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project aims to characterize variation in gene expression levels across individuals and diverse tissues of the human body, many of which are not easily accessible. Here we describe genetic effects on gene expression levels across 44 human tissues. We find that local genetic variation affects gene expression levels for the majority of genes, and we further identify inter-chromosomal genetic effects for 93 genes and 112 loci. On the basis of the identified genetic effects, we characterize patterns of tissue specificity, compare local and distal effects, and evaluate the functional properties of the genetic effects. We also demonstrate that multi-tissue, multi-individual data can be used to identify genes and pathways affected by human disease-associated variation, enabling a mechanistic interpretation of gene regulation and the genetic basis of disease
- âŠ