Table of Contents
Fetching ...

MPCitH-based Signatures from Restricted Decoding Problems

Michele Battagliola, Sebastian Bitzer, Antonia Wachter-Zeh, Violetta Weger

TL;DR

This paper embeds the restricted decoding problem $ ext{E}$-SDP into TCitH and VOLEitH MPC-in-the-Head signature frameworks, leveraging CROSS and ternary full-weight decoding hardness. It provides a polynomial modeling of $ ext{E}$-SDP that yields substantial signature-size reductions, including more than a twofold improvement over CROSS-NIST submissions, and shows that ternary full-weight decoding attains sizes competitive with the smallest NIST candidates. By comparing across CROSS-SDP and ternary-SDP regimes, the work demonstrates that TCitH/VOLEitH can adapt to different decoding hardness assumptions to achieve favorable trade-offs between security and efficiency. The results indicate meaningful practical gains for post-quantum signatures, with available artifacts to reproduce the reported parameterizations.

Abstract

Threshold-Computation-in-the-Head (TCitH) and VOLE-in-the-Head (VOLEitH), two recent developments of the MPC-in-the-Head (MPCitH) paradigm, have significantly improved the performance of digital signature schemes in this framework. In this note, we embed the restricted decoding problem within these frameworks. We propose a structurally simple modeling that achieves competitive signature sizes. Specifically, by instantiating the restricted decoding problem with the same hardness assumption underlying CROSS, we reduce sizes by more than a factor of two compared to the NIST submission. Moreover, we observe that ternary full-weight decoding, closely related to the hardness assumption underlying WAVE, is a restricted decoding problem. Using ternary full-weight decoding, we obtain signature sizes comparable to the smallest MPCitH-based candidates in the NIST competition.

MPCitH-based Signatures from Restricted Decoding Problems

TL;DR

This paper embeds the restricted decoding problem -SDP into TCitH and VOLEitH MPC-in-the-Head signature frameworks, leveraging CROSS and ternary full-weight decoding hardness. It provides a polynomial modeling of -SDP that yields substantial signature-size reductions, including more than a twofold improvement over CROSS-NIST submissions, and shows that ternary full-weight decoding attains sizes competitive with the smallest NIST candidates. By comparing across CROSS-SDP and ternary-SDP regimes, the work demonstrates that TCitH/VOLEitH can adapt to different decoding hardness assumptions to achieve favorable trade-offs between security and efficiency. The results indicate meaningful practical gains for post-quantum signatures, with available artifacts to reproduce the reported parameterizations.

Abstract

Threshold-Computation-in-the-Head (TCitH) and VOLE-in-the-Head (VOLEitH), two recent developments of the MPC-in-the-Head (MPCitH) paradigm, have significantly improved the performance of digital signature schemes in this framework. In this note, we embed the restricted decoding problem within these frameworks. We propose a structurally simple modeling that achieves competitive signature sizes. Specifically, by instantiating the restricted decoding problem with the same hardness assumption underlying CROSS, we reduce sizes by more than a factor of two compared to the NIST submission. Moreover, we observe that ternary full-weight decoding, closely related to the hardness assumption underlying WAVE, is a restricted decoding problem. Using ternary full-weight decoding, we obtain signature sizes comparable to the smallest MPCitH-based candidates in the NIST competition.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 21 sections, 1 theorem, 11 equations, 1 figure, 3 tables.

Key Result

proposition 1

The polynomial relation $F$ given in eq:modelling_RSDP provides a degree-$z$ modeling of $\mathcal{E}$-SDP: If $\mathbf w \in \mathbb{F}^k$ satisfies $F\mleft(\mathbf w\mright) = \mathbf0$, then the error vector $\mathbf e = (\mathbf w, \mathbf s - \mathbf w \mathbf A^\top)$ solves the $\mathcal{E}$

Figures (1)

  • Figure 1: Five-pass zero-knowledge proof of knowledge.

Theorems & Definitions (4)

  • remark 1
  • definition 1: $\mathcal{E}$-SDP
  • proposition 1
  • proof