Asiacrypt 2024

Asiacrypt 2024 Artifacts

Artifacts

Reducing the Number of Qubits in Quantum Information Set Decoding
Clémence Chevignard, Pierre-Alain Fouque, and André Schrottenloher

Interactive Threshold Mercurial Signatures
Masayuki Abe, Masaya Nanri, Octavio Perez Kempner, and Mehdi Tibouchi

Dense and smooth lattices in any genus
Wessel van Woerden

Actively Secure Polynomial Evaluation from Shared Polynomial Encodings
Pascal Reisert, Marc Rivinius, Toomas Krips, Sebastian Hasler, and Ralf Küsters

MuxProofs: Succinct Arguments for Machine Computation from Vector Lookups
Lucas Xia, Wilson Nguyen, Zijing Di, and Nirvan Tyagi

Constrained Pseudorandom Functions for Inner-Product Predicates from Weaker Assumptions
Sacha Servan-Schreiber

QuietOT: Lightweight Oblivious Transfer with a Public-Key Setup
Geoffroy Couteau, Lalita Devadas, Srinivas Devadas, Alexander Koch, and Sacha Servan-Schreiber

FOLEAGE: F₄OLE-Based Multi-Party Computation for Boolean Circuits
Maxime Bombar, Dung Bui, Geoffroy Couteau, Alain Couvreur, Clément Ducros, and Sacha Servan-Schreiber

SQIsign2D-West: The Fast, the Small, and the Safer
Andrea Basso, Pierrick Dartois, Luca De Feo, Antonin Leroux, Luciano Maino, Giacomo Pope, Damien Robert, and Benjamin Wesolowski

General Practical Cryptanalysis of the Sum of Round-Reduced Block Ciphers and ZIP-AES
Antonio Flórez-Gutiérrez, Lorenzo Grassi, Gregor Leander, Ferdinand Sibleyras, and Yosuke Todo

Faster Signatures from MPC-in-the-Head
Dung Bui, Eliana Carozza, Geoffroy Couteau, Dahmun Goudarzi, and Antoine Joux

Updatable Private Set Intersection Revisited: Extended Functionalities, Deletion, and Worst-Case Complexity
Saikrishna Badrinarayanan, Peihan Miao, Xinyi Shi, Max Tromanhauser, and Ruida Zeng

HELIOPOLIS: Verifiable Computation over Homomorphically Encrypted Data from Interactive Oracle Proofs is Practical
Diego F. Aranha, Anamaria Costache, Antonio Guimarães, and Eduardo Soria-Vazquez

LogRobin++: Optimizing Proofs of Disjunctive Statements in VOLE-Based ZK
Carmit Hazay, David Heath, Vladimir Kolesnikov, Muthuramakrishnan Venkitasubramaniam, and Yibin Yang

Scope and Aims

The two main goals of the artifact review process are to improve functionality and reusability of artifacts to enable reproduction and extension by the scientific community.

Reproducibility, in the context of computational experiments, means that the scientific results claimed can be obtained by a different team using the original authors' artifacts. The artifact review process does not include attempting to reproduce the experiment and to verify the scientific claims in the accepted paper. Rather, the artifact review process aims at ensuring sufficient functionality of the artifact to enable a research team to attempt to reproduce the results.

Examples of this in the field of cryptography include:

• Software implementations (performance, formal verification, etc.): The source code of the implementation; a list of all dependencies required; the test harness; instructions on how to build and run the software and the test harness; a description of the platform on which the results in the paper were obtained; and instructions or scripts to process the output of the test harness into appropriate summary statistics.
• Hardware implementations, physical attacks against implementations: A precise description of any physical equipment used in the setup; the source code of any software developed for the experiment; a list of all dependencies required; instructions on how to build the software and run the device or carry out the attack; instructions or scripts to process the output and interpret the results.
• Data or other non-code artifacts: Documents or reports in a widely used non-proprietary format, such as PDF, ODF, HTML, text; data in machine-readable format such as CSV, JSON, XML, with appropriate metadata describing the schema; scripts used to process the data into summary form. Where non-standard data formats cannot be avoided, authors should include suitable viewing software.

Where possible, such as in software-based artifacts relying solely on open-source components, the artifact review process will aim to run the artifact and test harness, and see that it produces outputs that would be required to assess the artifact against results in the paper. For artifacts that depend on commercial tools or specialized physical hardware, the goal of the artifact review process will be to confirm that the artifacts are functional, and could plausibly be used by someone with access to the appropriate tools to reproduce the results.

Reusability means that the artifacts are not just functional, but of sufficient quality that they could be extended and reused by others. Reusable artifacts have clear user and developer documentation, and are well-structured in ways that make them easy to modify or extend.

For more information, please see the Asiarypt 2024 Call for Artifacts.

Asiacrypt 2024 Artifact Evaluation Committee

Artifact Chair:

• Rei Ueno (Kyoto University)

Artifact Evaluation Committee Members:

• Julien Béguinot (LTCI, Télécom Paris, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, France)
• Aron Gohr (Independent researcher)
• Hosein Hadipour (Graz University of Technology, Austria)
• Haruto Kimura (The University of Melbourne, Australia & Waseda University, Japan)
• Akira Ito (NTT Social Informatics Laboratories, Japan)
• Kotaro Matsuoka (Kyoto University, Japan)
• Florian Mendel (Infineon Technologies, Germany)
• Hiraku Morita (Aarhus University & University of Copenhagen, Denmark)
• Prasanna Ravi (Nanyang Technological University, Singapore)
• Élise Tasso (Tohoku University, Japan)