Blocking is commonly used in randomized experiments to increase efficiency of estimation. A generalization of blocking removes allocations with imbalance in covariate distributions between treated and control units, and then randomizes within the remaining set of allocations with balance. This idea of rerandomization was formalized by Morgan and Rubin (Annals of Statistics, 2012, 40, 1263–1282), who suggested using Mahalanobis distance between treated and control covariate means as the criterion for removing unbalanced allocations. Kallus (Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B: Statistical Methodology, 2018, 80, 85–112) proposed reducing the set of balanced allocations to the minimum. Here we discuss the implication of such an ‘optimal’ rerandomization design for inferences to the units in the sample and to the population from which the units in the sample were randomly drawn. We argue that, in general, it is a bad idea to seek the optimal design for an inference because that inference typically only reflects uncertainty from the random sampling of units, which is usually hypothetical, and not the randomization of units to treatment versus control.

Error reconciliation is an important technique for learning with error (LWE) and ring-LWE (RLWE)-based constructions. In this paper, we present a comparison analysis on two error reconciliation-based RLWE key exchange protocols: Ding et al. in 2012 (DING12) and Bos et al. in 2015 (BCNS15). We take them as examples to explain the core idea of error reconciliation, building key exchange over RLWE problem, implementation and real-world performance, and compare them comprehensively. We also analyse a LWE key exchange 'Frodo' that uses an improved error reconciliation mechanism in BCNS15. To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first to present at least 128-bit classic (80-bit quantum) and 256-bit classic (> 200-bit quantum) secure parameter choices for DING12 with efficient portable C/C++ implementations. Benchmark shows that our efficient implementation is 11× faster than BCNS15 and one key exchange execution only costs 0.07 ms on a four-year-old middle range CPU. Error reconciliation is 1.57× faster than BCNS15.

No abstract uploaded!

No abstract uploaded!

No abstract uploaded!