3
$\begingroup$

I am currently working on an idea in the context of lattice-based cryptography, but the problem that I am currently stuck on seems to have almost nothing to do with lattices anymore.

In particular, my problem refers to the "Number-theoretic Transform" (NTT), i.e. the discrete weighted Fourier Transform in the context of a finite field, when applied to small vectors. So let $p$ be a prime with $p \equiv 1 \mod 2n$ ($n$ a power of two), thus there is a primitive $2n$-th root of unity $\zeta \in \mathbb{F}_p$. Furthermore, we consider all "short" vectors $y \in \mathbb{Z}^n \setminus \{0\}$ (e.g. $\|y\|_\infty \leq O(1)$, $\|y\|_2 \leq O(\sqrt{n})$, etc. - I am not yet sure about what is the best notion here). Now we can consider the NTT of $y$, i.e. $$ \hat{y}_k = \sum_{i = 0}^{n - 1} y_i \zeta^{ik} \in \mathbb{F}_p \quad \text{where $k \in (\mathbb{Z}/2n\mathbb{Z})^*$} $$ I don't think it makes much difference, but notice that this is not the standard DFT, but the evaluation at all primitive $2n$-th roots of unity.

The question is now: Can it happen that there is some short $y$ such that for "most"/all $k$, also $\hat{y}_k$ is small, e.g. bounded by $p/4$ (technically, we mean that the absolute value of the shortest lift of $\hat{y}_k \in \mathbb{F}_p$ is small)? If yes, can we say something about the primes $p$ where this happens? Do they have to be rare?

Any ideas/related problems/references are welcome, I am more asking for some directions to explore than for a proof or solution.

I am currently not sure which notions of small or most are best. I am interested in an asymptotic setting (as $n, p \to \infty$), and the example notions should give an idea of my idea of "small".

The context As I said, I do not think it is relevant here, but if you are interested - feel free to skip it: I want to prove a fact about a lattice whose dual depends on the "unit vectors" in the decomposition $$ \mathbb{F}_p[X]/(X^n + 1) \cong \bigoplus_{i = 1}^n \mathbb{F}_p $$ via $f \mapsto (f(\zeta^k))_k$. This plays an important role in RLWE-based cryptography. The unit vectors are clearly $n^{-1} \sum_i X^i \zeta^{ki}$, and thus the above NTT of short $y$ appear naturally when taking the inner product of a short vector $y \in \mathbb{Z}[X]/(X^n + 1)$ with a shortest lift of of some "unit vector" (the used inner product is the one in the Minkowski space, but for $n$ power of two, it is equivalent to the coefficient-wise inner product).

While not being the angle that I approached this from, I think there is a much more fundamental reason why this problem appears: In RLWE, we consider "error vectors" $e$ that are short in the Minkowski-space norm (thus in the coefficient norm). The security of cryptosystems depends on the fact that the solution to linear equations over $\mathbb{F}_p[X]/(X^n + 1)$ is hard to find, if the equations are "perturbed" by such an error. If now a not-too-small amount of these errors were also small in the decomposition of $\mathbb{F}_p[X]/(X^n + 1)$ as $\mathbb{F}_p^n$ (or even just distinguishable from uniform), then one could find the error in each component separately, thus breaking RLWE.

My ideas so far I have tried to investigate a probabilistic approach. This gives a trivial bound in the case that we have an additional constant that is chosen at random - i.e. $c\hat{y}_k$ is not small for all $y$ and many $k$, assuming we pick specific $c \in \mathbb{F}_p$ and require that $p$ is absolutely huge compared to $n$. While the constant itself is not problem at all in my case, the "absolutely huge" is. In particular, my bound holds even when replacing the $\zeta^{ik}$ with almost arbitrary, fixed elements. I would really hope that we can better in the case of roots of unity.

However, using a probabilistic approach here seems very difficult, as the dependency between $p$ and $\zeta$ seems very intractable.

I am sorry for asking such a fuzzy question here. I am mainly working with cryptographers, and so I don't have the opportunity to discuss this kind of question with a pure mathematician at my institution.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ This seems like an interesting question, but I am not sure which terms are fixed and which are variable. Which regime are you working in? That is, are you fixing $n$ and considering $p$ as going to infinity, and then asking for whether a desirable $y$ exists, or are you considering both $n,p$ as fixed? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 14 at 20:26
  • $\begingroup$ Basically, I am considering the setting that $n$ is fixed and $p \to \infty$. Nevertheless, I am mainly interested what happens for large $n$. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 15 at 9:09

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.