International Association for Cryptologic Research

# IACR News Central

Get an update on changes of the IACR web-page here. For questions, contact newsletter (at) iacr.org. You can also get this service via

You can also access the full news archive.

Further sources to find out about changes are CryptoDB, ePrint RSS, ePrint Web, Event calender (iCal).

2013-06-25
16:36 [Event][New]

Submission: 4 August 2013
From November 4 to November 4
Location: Berlin, Germany

12:35 [Event][New]

Submission: 13 September 2013
From December 9 to December 11
Location: London, UK

2013-06-24
16:47 [Event][New]

Submission: 13 September 2013
From March 24 to March 28
Location: Gyeongju, Korea

09:17 [Forum]

We don\'t have space limitations anymore - we can accept any good paper from now on :-) Best, Christopher Orr Wrote: > you are susceptible > to variance (Y should be O(X), IMHO) in the number > of accepted papers, or some decent papers gets > rejected due to lack of space. From: 2013-24-06 09:11:00 (UTC)

2013-06-23
21:17 [Forum]

But in this case, if you accept X papers, you need to pass to Stage 2 X+Y papers (assuming some will fail the testing), and then, you are susceptible to variance (Y should be O(X), IMHO) in the number of accepted papers, or some decent papers gets rejected due to lack of space. In addition, why not to just separate the submission into two parts: abstract, and the rest. Then, interested committee members could immediately check the details if they wish. Which is btw, what happens now, but with shorter abstract. From: 2013-23-06 18:32:14 (UTC)

15:17 [Forum]

Thanks for the insight! My question would be a different one though: Does rebuttal/rebattle [1] change something from the perspective of the /reviewers/: Do you write your review more carefully (it could be questioned) or not? If the first happens, I guess it\'s worth the overhead. If no, you are right. In this case, it\'s not worth the bother. Best, Christopher [1] I do prefer the second term ;-) From: 2013-23-06 14:10:09 (UTC)

12:17 [Forum]

Dear all, Here a proposal that aims at reducing review workload. The idea is to split the review of a paper in two stages. It implies that each paper has two parts: - an abstract aimed at the non-specialized reader clearly stating the contribution of the paper (selling it, actually). So the abstract should probably be longer that what we have now (say a 2-page limit) - a technical part that will typically be more specialized Stage 1: the paper is reviewed by a relatively large number of people from different sub-disciplines, based on the abstract only. Reviewers should assume that the technical part will deliver what the abstract announces. If the paper survives this phase, it proceeds to phase 2. Stage 2: a few specialized reviewers check in detail whether the technical part delivers on the promise made in the abstract. If so, the paper is accepted. This includes verification of proofs, claimed attack complexity etc. At least in theory this may reduce the workload as most reviewers only have to read the abstract. Forcing the authors to write an abstract aimed at a wider audience has the additional benefit that papers may become more accessible to people working in other sub-disciplines. I realise that whether this really works depends on how it is implemented. For example, something must be built in against overselling. This could be done by having a system with (negative) points where each co-author gets a point when his paper passes stage 1 but not stage 2 and these points are somehow taken into account in stage 1. And of course there are many other details that may make this a success or a failure. But let\'s first see if there is support for the basic idea in the first place. Joan From: 2013-23-06 11:06:21 (UTC)

2013-06-22
21:17 [Forum]

Amit, From my past experience with conferences with two-phase review (rebuttal, or whatever you want to call it) - it rarely changes anything in the final program. In other words, it\'s a lot of overhead, for a very little impact on the outcome of the review process. So this idea, as logical as it sounds, is not "working", IMHO. From: 2013-22-06 18:20:06 (UTC)

2013-06-21
09:07 [Event][New]

Submission: 15 July 2013
From December 7 to December 10
Location: Mumbai, India

2013-06-20
18:56 [PhD][Update]

Name: Enrico Thomae
In the present work, we present a new discrete logarithm algorithm, in the same vein as in recent works by Joux, using an asymptotically more efficient descent approach. The main result gives a quasi-polynomial heuristic complexity for the discrete logarithm problem in finite field of small characteristic. By quasi-polynomial, we mean a complexity of type $n^{O(\\log n)}$ where $n$ is the bit-size of the cardinality of the finite field. Such a complexity is smaller than any $L(\\varepsilon)$ for $\\epsilon>0$. It remains super-polynomial in the size of the input, but offers a major asymptotic improvement compared to $L(1/4+o(1))$.