/
answer-reviewer
34 lines (24 loc) · 1.4 KB
/
answer-reviewer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Dear reviewers,
We would like to thank you for the time you took to carefully review
our work, and for your detailed suggestions. We realize that, in the
rush of submitting before the deadline, we stated our results in an
approximate way. We apologize for that, we did our best to fix the
problem. We would like to point out the differences with the first
submitted version, and why we think that these differences address
your remarks.
The most important changes we made are the following:
- We replaced the incorrect assumption ℓ=O(1) by a worst-case bound
which we computed as ℓ=O(log q), and updated the complexities of
Proposition 5.1 and the Theorem accordingly.
- We precised which steps in the algorithms use randomness.
- We restated our original complexity claim as a median-case value, and
explained why we think that this is useful in practice.
- We ran more consistent experiments, and expanded their numerical
range, using parameters up to usual cryptographic sizes.
This article was written using the collaborative tools Git and the
GitHub platform. Should you be interested in having a more detailed
view of the differences with the submitted version, we invite you to
visit the following URL:
https://github.com/Hugounenq-Cyril/Two_curves_on_a_volcano/commit/review
Alternatively, if you are used to the Git VCS, you can clone the
public repository and explore the differences locally.