Advertisement

Designs, Codes and Cryptography

, Volume 73, Issue 2, pp 355–368 | Cite as

PotLLL: a polynomial time version of LLL with deep insertions

  • Felix FonteinEmail author
  • Michael Schneider
  • Urs Wagner
Article

Abstract

Lattice reduction algorithms have numerous applications in number theory, algebra, as well as in cryptanalysis. The most famous algorithm for lattice reduction is the LLL algorithm. In polynomial time it computes a reduced basis with provable output quality. One early improvement of the LLL algorithm was LLL with deep insertions (DeepLLL). The output of this version of LLL has higher quality in practice but the running time seems to explode. Weaker variants of DeepLLL, where the insertions are restricted to blocks, behave nicely in practice concerning the running time. However no proof of polynomial running time is known. In this paper PotLLL, a new variant of DeepLLL with provably polynomial running time, is presented. We compare the practical behavior of the new algorithm to classical LLL, BKZ as well as blockwise variants of DeepLLL regarding both the output quality and running time.

Keywords

Lattice reduction LLL algorithm Deep insertion 

Mathematics Subject Classification

68R05 94A60 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by CASED (http://www.cased.de). Michael Schneider was supported by project BU 630/23-1 of the German Research Foundation (DFG). Urs Wagner and Felix Fontein are supported by SNF Grant no. 132256. The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees for their helpful comments. F. F. would also like to thank Kornelius Walter for the helpful discussions about statistics.

References

  1. 1.
    Chen Y., Nguyen P.Q.: BKZ 2.0: better lattice security estimates. In: Lee D.H., Wang X. (eds.) Advances in Cryptology—ASIACRYPT 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7073, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cong L., Mow W.H., Howgrave-Graham N.: Reduced and fixed-complexity variants of the lll algorithm for communications. IEEE Trans. Commun. 61(3), 1040–1050 (2013).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fontein F., Schneider M., Wagner U.: A polynomial time version of LLL with deep insertions. In: Preproceedings of the International Workshop on Coding and Cryptography, WCC ’13 (2013).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gama N., Nguyen P.Q.: Predicting lattice reduction. In: Smart N. (ed.) Advances in Cryptology—EUROCRYPT 2008. LNCS, vol. 4965, pp. 31–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hanrot G., Pujol X., Stehlé D.: Analyzing blockwise lattice algorithms using dynamical systems. In: Rogaway P. (ed.) CRYPTO. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6841, pp. 447–464. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lenstra A.K., Lenstra Jr H.W., Lovász L.: Factoring polynomials with rational coefficients. Math. Ann. 261(4), 515–534 (1982).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martinet J.: Perfect lattices in Euclidean Spaces. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften (Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences), vol. 327. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2003).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Micciancio D., Goldwasser S.: Complexity of Lattice Problems: A Cryptographic Perspective. The Kluwer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science, vol. 671. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (2002).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Micciancio D., Regev O.: Lattice-based cryptography. In: Bernstein D.J., Buchmann J., Dahmen E. (eds.) Post-quantum Cryptography, pp. 147–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nguyen P.Q., Stehlé D.: Floating-point LLL revisited. In: Cramer R. (ed.) Advances in Cryptology—EUROCRYPT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3494, pp. 215–233. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nguyen P.Q., Stehlé D.: LLL on the average. In: Hess F., Pauli S., Pohst M.E. (eds.) ANTS. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4076, pp. 238–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nguyen P.Q., Vallée B.: The LLL Algorithm: Survey and Applications. Information Security and Cryptography. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Novocin A., Stehlé D., Villard G.: An LLL-reduction algorithm with quasi-linear time complexity: extended abstract. In: STOC, pp. 403–412. ACM, New York (2011).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schnorr C.-P., Euchner M.: Lattice basis reduction: improved practical algorithms and solving subset sum problems. Math. Program. 66(2), 181–199 (1994).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schnorr C.-P.: Block reduced lattice bases and successive minima. Comb. Prob. Comput. 3, 507–522 (1994).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität ZürichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Technische Universität DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations