Christmas time and ends up but somehow I ended up in two by mistakes and I have one at the office and one at home. So it actually works out pretty well. So my talk, so my talk is titled language as synesthesia. I guess it's a little bit more theoretical and a lot more linguistic than you know some of the other things. So I sort of made it so it's successful to those of you who don't have a huge formal background if anyone else is interested you can ask. I guess Shannon has sort of heard some of this before because it's yeah I'm in prelim so but it sounds better now synesthesia that's everyone loves that. So language is synesthesia. So just a brief like construal of the field up to this point of linguistics right. So classic generative grammar began as sort of a formal analysis of language working in sort of these phrase structure rules that were sort of like a post system right. So you have a formal system that generates you know structures that are accessible you know syntactic structures and this is where the generativity of language comes from or whatever. So there's a modular view of language and the goal implicit in this is to understand what universal grammar is. Universal grammar meaning whatever traits exist in language that are not built you know from other cognitive faculties. So more recently there's an often quoted article by Halzer Chomsky and Fitch on language acquisition or language evolution excuse me talking about the acquisition primate but which coincide term the faculty of language in the broad sense and that means everything about cognitive life that plays into language as opposed to the faculty of language in the narrow sense which is whatever that you know universal grammar is whatever that you know little piece that makes human language distinct for them it's merged but we'll talk about that a little later. So the field during the 70s and 80s of course you had this proliferation of constraints and stipulations and you know syntax discovered all these little things presumably in universal grammar that made sort of syntactic theorizing a little messy because you had all these different stipulations you know things that weren't necessarily based on any other factor. So during the 90s the minimalist programmer rose and the idea behind it was taking the sort of syntactic traits of language and of course explaining them in terms of either external factors external like the interface different interfaces like prosody or phenology or semantics or what Chomsky 2005 calls third factor and third factor is meant to be so there's nature and there's nurture and there's third factor third factor supposed to be things like laws of form you know the sort of well-formatness in general or sometimes complex interactions between the other two factors.  Now as a parallel to that phenology developed in a somewhat different way of course classically phenology was sort of rule-based in the same way you had the sound pattern of English and all these kind of attempts that made you know more or less rule-based analysis of language but in the early 1990s this changed Paul Smolensky sort of came to the field in indirect an indirect way and wrote he was sort of coming from a connectionist background or you know his general idea is that you don't need these kind of rules what you can do is you know to account for phonological variation is just have constraints and you know the constraints take care of themselves in a neural net you don't actually have to pause at any of this UG stuff you don't actually need it you don't need you know different rules you can just have optimality and that's that of course gave roasts the op-up optimality theory which is pretty common in phenology now. So originally the idea was like the the constraints that define phonology are sort of in universal grammar in some ways but most recently people have actually tried to word those constraints in terms of explicitly in terms of like external effects so for example there are phonological constraints like it you know it's hard to say voiceless sounds and voiced sounds in sequence it's hard to modulate your voice back and voice voicing not voicing voicing not voicing so these things fall out from some kind of physicality about how the mouth is constructed and presumably all all of these constraints aren't necessarily in universal grammar they fall out from you know the actual reality of speech or something like that and the goal is sort of that you know we don't want phonology to exist as a sort of thing as itself that is all of the traits of phonology actually come from you know these external factors. Now for some reasons this minimalism isn't as possible in traditional generative grammar now minimalism is the goal but there are some I guess sort of holdovers that we have from sort of an earlier time traditionally there's the idea that the syntactic engine produces strings or you know structures and they're interpreted on two interfaces phonological interface and the semantic interface so the syntax now this is sort of a problem because the the syntactic engine in a way is sort of blind to these interfaces they come you know after syntax does its thing so what if you want to like have merge or you want to have syntax you know have these truly minimal structures that you know only work in terms of external constraints merge sort of has to have the answers written on the back of its hand it has to know I can put this here I can put that there and the way of implementing this is sort of by putting all the answers in the lexicon that as you say you know for example English is a VO language because there is some kind of head feature you know abstract head feature that always wants you know you know an object on this particular side or something like that so it's I think it's kind of cheating frankly but anyway I'll sort of show you my alternative so the minimalist ideal and syntax regardless is a theory where the narrow language faculty is something small maybe even nothing maybe something that is sort of epiphenomenal and the language faculty can see all interface constraints simultaneously so you it is a what it can look at phonology it can look at semantics and we'll talk about that in a bit and the actual mechanism of the narrow language faculty is at home in general cognitive architecture so all the complexities if you want a truly minimal system you want the complexities of language to be dealt with in terms of other cognitive apparatuses or whatever however whatever the plural that word you want to have and of course it has to be interesting because otherwise I wouldn't be interested so synesthesia so I assume most people you know know what synesthesia is but in case you don't it's a kind of mental condition where you might see a smell or like smell a shape you sort of it's a crossing of different media of sensory you know in your sensory motor system so you know a lot of people see colors and numbers and they can whenever they see a number that it appears as some particular color something like that so when it's some extreme situations whole mental faculty seem to merge with each other so take the example of Daniel Tamet he's a actually an autistic savant he sort of became famous when the BBC did a document around him a couple maybe a decade ago or something but he's capable of doing these in crazy calculations you just give him numbers and it'll divide them multiply them whatever you want he can count pi to like ten thousand digits or something and he actually reports this as being sort of this is a kind of synesthesia most autistic savants can't report this but he's very high functioning so he can do this and he says what happens when he's he is doing math is that he sees each number as a kind of object with like a color a shape and when he's doing math with those are those you know numbers they physically move together and you know they combine to make this new number so what seems to happen is that I put too many words on the slide because you can't see him but what seems to happen is his spatial reasoning you know he's the human ability for spatial reasoning which by all account is pretty good has been sort of co-opted to do this other thing like numeracy so that that's sort of what I'm getting at here so when I say language is synesthesia I'm saying that language results not from a new operation so not something like merge or set forming formation like hauser-chompskin pitch proposed but as a kind of synesthesia between two interfaces that is the motor system the thing that you pronounce things that has all the prosodic phonological constraints because you're externalizing it and the conceptual intentional system that really just means semantic semantics your semantic processing stuff like this so in other animals these are distinct cognitive systems that have evolved and they do their own things but humans have this distinct ability to apply categories of one system onto the other in back so while most of the conceptual intentional system is non-conscious if it's mixed with the motor system in this way effectively what happens is that humans in by language by this kind of synesthesia we can externalize these interior thoughts in a way not just to other people but sort of to ourselves like they make them aware to our conscious mind so the claim just in general is like humans are basically high-functioning autistic savant apes okay instead of smelling colors our motor system spills and you know spills out our ideas and our ideas you know can be processed you know in our sensory motor system and like synesthesia you don't have a choice right I think we were talking about a couple weeks ago you can't not interpret English when you hear it you can't not interpret whatever language you hear just has to happen same thing with people who have synesthesia if you see a five and you perceive fives as red you're going to see five five seems like a very red number to me I don't know I don't have synesthesia but so there's no need for a formal like a narrow language faculty per se you don't need an extra operation it's so it's not so much minimalism it's sort of nihilism you don't have a new operation you just have different faculties merging so but of course synesthesia or whatever you know your brain has a sort of trial to overcome in a way that is the motor system in the conceptual intentional system are formally different so their differences are immediate and presumably their differences mediated by you know general cognitive architecture I'll get into that similar to optimality theory and phenology so just in general you know when you're looking at semantic structure or you're when you're looking at the structures it's generated by merge I don't necessarily yield much credence to that but when you're thinking about this you know the structure of semantics is more or less binary and it can go infinitely deep so you can have sentences and sentences sentences that's totally fine even when you look at distributed morphology or cartography or something like this this is the kind of structure you find very deep structures with different meanings and you know so you have stuff like this so semantic structure tends to be binary and very deep but when you actually externalize things it has to be a little different that is when you externalize things the formal structure has to be bushy right so you can't go infinitely deep you can't go very wide but you have for example the U is an utterance IP is intonational phrase the Phi is like a phonological phrase these are all different modulations that you have an actual speech and you have to put them in not necessarily this infinitely embedded situation but you have to put them sort of you know right next to each other the equal situation so what the language faculty has to do is it takes the two formal structures that these different systems have and it has to sort of optimize given the constraints above so you can see a lot of this what you have is a kind of matching or grafting in this so common example is extraposition in different language this is is German of course so the sentences I feel this in Vasili but I want to know what love is so the structure on the left is actually consistent with normal German word order so you usually put the objects right before the verb so the verb is this and here the object is Vasili best you would you'd expect it to be like on the left but in reality this when the object is something that has to something phonologically really heavy some kind of CP some kind of phrase but actually has to happen it has it has to appear at the end of the sentence and if you think about this in terms of phonological constraints it actually makes lots of sense really you're just trying to graft particular phrases on the particular particular phonological phrases and sometimes that requires you to move things around from the order you might think is normal it actually happens in English as well so we have usually put adjectives before the noun the excited man but if you want to say excited for the future that's you know its own little phrase in itself you can't say the excited for the future man that doesn't really sound right so you say the man excited for the future and those are two distinct phonological phrases and this is something that happens of course all the time it's you know don't even notice it so now if for example language is doing this and just optimizing with two different structures in phenology of course when you look at language differences the differences is what languages prioritize what constraints so presumably if that is true in phenology should be true in syntactic variation because ultimately we're just motivating it in terms of phenology so traditionally children were thought of as learning syntactic parameters when they're children so you learn if your language has verbs before objects or objects before verbs or something like this but if the traits of syntax fall out from prosody or some kind of interface constraint string the syntactic parameters shouldn't really be syntactic parameters they should really you should have prosodic parameters and those interact to cause the syntactic parameters there's nothing that per se that you learn about the syntax of the language you learn the external constraints you like prosody and then the syntax falls out so what do I mean by that one of the articles I sent around I don't know if anyone read it because it's the last week and it was like 40 pages but what it was on was you know the WH parameter so traditionally you have languages like English that move question words up to beginning of the sentence yeah I'll also have languages like Japanese that keep question words sort of where they semantically belong wherever they are in the sentence they don't have to be the beginning so Richards this is the article I sent out notices that Japanese and English are actually doing the same thing so if you look at the Japanese sentence in a kind of you know spectrogram you look at how it's pronounced you'll see actually that what when you get to the question word there's a pitch compression that lasts until the end of the sentence and what's significant about that is present in Japanese that's where you have compliment isers that's where you have the see the scope of the sentence while in English it's actually on the left okay but in Japanese it's on the right yeah so in this in this sentence the question particle cop is left out do you know if and that totally fine yeah but do you know if the question particle car is left on the end of that sentence same thing happens I don't know I don't think his data talked about that okay I don't know and I don't know enough about Japanese that so but the idea is so when you get to the question origin Japanese what Japanese speakers do is compress everything from the question word to the sea which is on the right hand into one phonological phrase and the Richards ideas basically all languages try and do this they try and minimize the prosodic difference between the question word and where it takes scope in the in C now in English where C is on the left now English and Japanese I should say are the same in that they project phonological boundaries on the left side so Japanese can project you know from this phonological boundary and make one big phonological phrase joining all the rest of the sentence so you're all in one phonological phrase English can't do that because again if it as well forms boundaries on the left but of course the C in English is to the actually to the left as well so what English does is move the parameter out or the word out so Richard's account it's I'm not giving it justice you should take a look at it if you're interested but basically he makes an a whole typology of languages that vary on these two parameters whether you have a C on the right or the left and whether you make phonological phrases on the right or left and if you look at languages across the world you actually find out that in each situation whether or not you have a WH fronting or WH in situ language it actually simply falls out from the prosodic factors of each language and nothing else so you don't actually need a WH parameter in the classical sense and he can even account for some data of WH words actually moving to the right but you can't necessarily do in traditional but it happens in Basque but it's hard to do in traditional syntax so word order parameters are sort of the same so kind of more you pour notices that you know traditional accounts of stress what happened is you sort of build syntactic structure and as you build syntactic structure the phonological rules of the language assign where stress is going to be based on the structure it's building up okay now the problem with that as kind of moving forward notices is that does that might might be true but this kind of theory over generates the kind of languages you actually find in real life because theoretically you could have the stress at any particular place any particular word that doesn't actually happen what actually happens is that languages universally will stress objects over subjects and subjects over verbs that's intentional stress will fall on the object if not the subject yada yada so so really the classical theories over generate this but if you have sort of the present the perspective of well what's really happened is there's simply an optimization going on what ends up you can simply say instead of for example syntax feeding phonology a string and phonology putting stress in places you instilled said say oh there are prosodic parameters in different languages and each language will place its words in a place such that they reach receive the appropriate level of stress so that's the idea here and that was of course it went off the one slide where I have my own stuff and it goes off the side but this is an implementation of this in optimality theory if you don't know what this is this is it's fun but on the left these are all different potential word orders and phonological phrase parsing and up here you have different constraints so for example taught this is there are processing constraints there are you know funnel phonological constraints so for example topics should tend to come before you know non topics like subjects before objects you should have to okay expressed you should have a yambic stress stuff like that and this part of this part of my qualifying paper so if you feed a neural net implemented in you know optimality theory but if you the idea is if you feed a neural net these kind of constraints you can actually get the word orders for free you don't have to have separate your rules saying that English is an SVO language or something like that so as a reorientation that's through a bunch of linguistics at you as a reorientation though so linguistic alternations and this idea should be one motivatable by external you know interface constraints like phonology semantic stuff like this and two they should be accounted for with general not non UG specific cognitive architecture so the idea and this is something that ideally this does because you're a you're motivating things by these constraints and you also are dealing with them in such a way that uses what is modeled as a neural net which presumably is something similar to what the brain may or may not do so you're getting this kind of stuff for free is the idea so data like the previous previous are examples of both and you again this is very minimalist interpretation of both so we've I've described languages synesthesia but what does this actually mean for human cognitive life outside of linguistics so in this perception right you know language is kind of making the non-conscious aspect of the the sensory or excuse me the conceptual intentional system conscious in that spilling it into your sensory motor system so you all all the sudden you suddenly become aware of all these different heuristics that your mind had that you know weren't necessarily in in your brain beforehand you can introspect you can look at the sentences you're saying and does this actually make sense you can have multiple sentences sort of in your short time your short-term conscious memory and you can dwell on thought memorize things easier stuff like this now we can have multiple levels of cognitive we might have different levels of cognitive processes somewhat of which are more conscious somewhere less but this kind of synesthesia sort of brings them all to the same level so you can sort of use them you know for at for one end or something like that so some of some why is that this may or may not answer to your call so one is why is our conscious perceptive thought in language so a good question you might ask is well in you know traditional theories of grammar you have some kind of language of thought somehow it gets out and eventually you annunciate it and you know whatever parameters of your language and which are mostly based on you know these kind of interface constraints you know but a good question to ask is why when we're actually thinking in our head why do we think in English why don't we think in some other kind of form of logic so in a theory like this the the answer is what is happening is not that consciousness is just bubbling up until you know it comes from our on con or excuse me language thought is not bubbling up from the non-conscious mind into our consciousness out our mouths or something like that what actually is happening is that our conscious perceptive language is actually coming from the sensory motor system so you're actually you know because that is the sort of interface and you are aware only of the form of language which you externalize and nothing else so why are humans cognitive at least distinct from non-human relatives so we have similar abilities but a large portion of our general reasoning abilities are malleable by these levels of cognitive higher level cognition so we can as I said in the last site we can double think things we can evaluate things we can sort of you know although animals might have sort of similar heuristics and biases that we have we can sort of dwell on them and you know use them for more you know for thinking or or of course exchange them so another question is why do humans acquire language so easily well firstly they acquire the syntax of the language as early as they hear the prosodic constraints right so in this theory right when you are learning the prosody of language you are learning the syntax when you learn where stress goes in a sentence you're actually learning also where objects and subjects and stuff like this go or you know and of course by all accounts you know prosodic learning starts extremely early possibly even in utero so you know babies you know still unborn might know if their languages are wh fronting or not but that's just the possibility so that's one thing speeding up acquisition because there is really no syntactic acquisition it's just prosodic acquisition secondly languages are end up being local maxima of prosodic optimization and what I mean by that is you know if you imagine if you imagine well I can actually draw this yeah I don't have an award room I'll just do it here so if you imagine let's say we have in dimensional space okay say this is like this is two dimensions but imagine it is like in dimensional space though there's dimension one there's dimension two okay and these two dimensions are like the rank the importance of a particular prosodic constraint or something like that so these are two imagine infinity of them or however many there are so on this we have sort of topology of you know there are different lumps and these are lumps of prosodic well-formatness right so the higher the lump that's the prosodically better you know a particular setting of constraints is okay so in a theory like this since you have all of these different prosodic constraints that work together they converge on sort of an optimal solution and Richard gets at this like you know English's WH fronting comes from the other parameters of the language if we were basically every language is a Pareto optimal solution to different constraints if you change any of them they get worse so we're all sort of local maxima so at every point here is of you know all the possible languages you can theoretically have each of these points is like a language that could actually exist in real life so if you're acquiring a language and you hear data that's consistent with let's say a point here well you now know that if you want to get to a you know the local maximum or whatever you actually move up here you say okay I've heard data consistent with this language but this language is a local maxima I'm going to you know that that's probably what I'm actually hearing so you with this kind of algorithm for children to acquire you know prosodically well-formed languages you actually ease the sort of acquisition of how this happens and of course this again would happen for gajillion parameters not just to so it wouldn't just be you know that level so what else and another thing I guess I was sort of thinking about at the last minute is you know how does this compare to what Tom has been mentioning about you know Natasha's work about how we you know can hear partial sentences and you know don't understand anything I think there might be an answer even for that here in that I mean if you think about synesthesia so if you let's say you know you have synesthesia and you see a five all right and let's say five feels green to you just because green is the the letter or the color I had now if you see half of a five it's not like it's not like you're gonna see half green or something like that it has to be totally categorical so what what is actually happening when we're processing language is not so much we are hearing things our conscious mind is hearing things bit by bit and we're interpreting them rather the sensory motor system which is sort of you know figuring these things out for us will either send us sort of a full five giving us the you know send you know the the percept of greenness or the percept of meaning but if it sends us half of that well then that doesn't mean anything it wasn't interpreted in interpreted in the sensory motor system so it doesn't mean anything so that that's I don't know does that make sense right yeah yeah so it's it's supposed to be categorical so in order if you know if the sensory motor system sends you partial data then that doesn't mean anything because the idea is basically you're not doing the processing in your conscious mind it happens in this optimization between you know the sensory motor system and the conceptual intention was just the synesthesia idea is really cool because it actually does match the anatomy the stuff I was talking about yeah yeah that parent paper yeah oh yeah yeah they're being deeper connections literally between the auditory and sensory motor regions of the mind that's one of the genetic precursors of language so as opposed to other animals yeah that's common only to those vocal learning birds and humans hmm so that goes online okay did you did you have like a handout that you gave out no but it's just the name Eric Jarvis okay I'll check that out where is he you know okay all right so some conclusions are sort of restatements so the ideas language arose in humans not as a new mental operation like merged that you know that's comes the common in how's are in all but really a merger of two different systems that's you know likable to a synesthesia so consistent one with minimalist principles linguistic variation does happen at the interfaces not necessarily in the traditional way but what is effectively happening is that when you learn well you don't learn the syntax of a language you learn the constraints what is important in your language you know in prosody and things like this and the syntax sort of falls out from that so the the cognitive good of language is that you are made aware of all these like lower level processes in your brain and you can think about them well I listed them out again right so you can introspect second guess easier to memorize stuff like that and the idea of merge and the narrow language faculty isn't necessary isn't a necessity you don't have to think that there's an actual you know evolution in a lot of ways you know progresses by repurposing and changing old machinery not not necessarily making these new operations and it also allows you to say the other article I sent out the gallus the articles of course on some of the cognitive properties that are attributed to merge or the language faculty are actually present in animals and you can actually that this is consistent with that data you can say that animals do have you know numeracy and dikesis and some of the other things the gallus little talks about it's just that they don't have the you know they can employ it at the level we can because they don't have this synesthesia that brings it to consciousness so I think that yeah so that's it questions comments so it seems that you need to address certain kinds of phenomena that are not obviously related to the phrase in the same you talk about it in terms of intonation you might be mapping that or somebody might map that out too yeah but how in this way of thinking well I think there are different you send it like you continue well I think there are different ways of dealing with it one is that well there's the possibility that in the conceptual system you know something like an anaphore and something like a phenomenal or just different things and they're reflected in language like that that's sort of a cop-out but I think also I'm not necessarily I don't lend too much credence to a lot of the things about the different principles just because a lot of them are sensitive to things like linear order in certain situations and a lot of them you know they're sort of variation at the edges now that said there I'm fully I guess my perspective is there are some things that I can't explain including for example the difference between raising and control or something like that maybe so there are some things that traditional generative grammar does really well and I'm not necessarily taking those things on I'm just sort of leaving them focusing on the things I want so I'm basically saying I don't have a good answer that's what you're looking for but if you if you're viewing this as a project yeah then these are the kinds of things you need to integrate yeah was every language have an intonation pattern that satisfies the criteria that you need well their intonational patterns are different but they all what are you getting at there I don't know because I don't know about different languages are you asking if they're all like local max on that thing you were drawing well that's one question well I would I would say I would you know assert without sufficient evidence I'd probably say that that's the case that is no language could be prosodically improved in general by changing one parameter something like that now I guess another question would be are you know there's been much research on artificial languages can people learn languages that are sent violate UG in traditional terms one question would be can you teach in a laboratory setting someone a prosodically poorly formed language it's a question might be a way of pursuing this kind of stuff but I think in general implicit here is I would claim that yes I think that all languages in some sense all languages that actually just exist in the world aren't since some you know prosodically optimal for their you know local maximum different ways of assessing them I just don't know what about ASL like what's the intonation pattern or stress pattern there I'm just ignorant of it well I mean I can't tell you specifically about it but I guess my theory would sort of predict that in the same way that there are you know constraints the spoken languages there are constraints to how you contort your hands things like this and presumably languages that are built on different media might not necessarily share exactly the same kind of you know you know in different modalities you might have different constraints and you might expect languages to look totally differently in formal terms now I don't know enough about signed languages to opine on that but that certainly something I sort of want to know constraints well I honestly I frankly don't know enough about sign languages to even know how to validate them so I don't I'm not really sure I mean I guess well if I make some sort of drastic claim about why something happens in spoken language for I mean first WH fronting right so Richards claim about you know minimizing prosodic differences is there some corollary of that in sign languages if there's not maybe you know it's something modality dependent if it is maybe either the theory is wrong or it is there's something deeper than even the I mean first one one example I was thinking about is constituency right so you might want to put things and let me zoom back so you might want to put yeah you might want to put you know phrases in this kind of constituency because oh it's prosodically well-formed and it's nice to have phonological phrase phonological phrase phonological phrase and nothing else but it could also be something like just general processing right so it it's easier to process things in chunks and the phenology is just that the phenomenal the fact that we put them in prosodic phrases or something so I guess there are a lot of different ways to interpret it and I I don't know within the case of sign language where that would lead you go back to your chart the optimality chart right what was that so you've heard Dave Medeiros yeah that's right well I will say so I have a typology this this chart is not actually complete I ran I should have mentioned this but I ran you know certain constraints in the grant like and ran them through a program that gives you a typology of what languages can occur and my answer my theory is actually more restrictive than Dave so I actually rule out I think the OSV which is the one he rules out and also I think OVS one of the other object initial language I think it's so I have all the subject before but object languages and I think also VOS is possible now I could rejigger the constraints and get things differently but as my theory right here predicts you know for particular particular word orders and that's something like 99% of languages so I just sort of left it there so with OSV just be blocked by it's a myriad of constraints and that's what yeah basically and it's weird how this actually works out so one of the constraints that you know at least counts against it is topic first which of course one subject before objects that actually doesn't although if you get rid of that you actually get basically the same grammar it's really strange how it works what actually happens you get more I think VSO grammars it's something really weird but yeah it's really just a conspiracy of constraints none of them say of course you know star 213 but they sort of incidentally rule that out and similar word orders so that so the brackets are supposed to be like phonological phrases so for example phonological phrase so for example a that's like the subject is in one phonological phrase V O is in another phonological phrase as opposed to like D where the subject in the verb would be in one phonological phrase that's sorry if you're not clear from that before so I'm pretty hot this is my qualifying paper on sort of or this chart is sort of part of that so I'm happy with results there at least and yeah all right thanks okay yep


ไ Industries are becoming你知道щее,ía. ฆ broken two units were then absolute lose.ola out réussi investigation what Fortune write for തyscy Charm Were exposed to the OK of Temple ത savoir ത quantify What Fortune collected ത Chr اṰ extraction ౔ 바 ỜỾar, เทā 보고 �ariative തfund ത��不好意思 തvised � wet out, rod 1 write  cont serve  besides rice or rice, some of my healthy arrangements between the family of the servant and housemaid, all the people start starving in Sarabha, not knowing how it can be held without being fed or fed or even threatened in the government The needーhaiful day to have a husband can Online business plants toösター桂 v. Lingels Is to stay in Dineshpantshan Maybe for now , it's my home


The Saiyan prince has fallen and will it be his last time too? I-I-I don't know. I don't know anything anymore. Even Frieza got his booty cheeks run through last time by the rabid that is Dispo. Well, Toppo's taking on Gohan and Android 17 at the same time. Universe 7, what are we doing? Guys, welcome back to the channel.  The tournament of power continues. I'm ready to get back into it. Let's go. He just stands there. Not even giving him the respect to stare at him laying there. Vegeta's gonna be- have to be completely incapacitated to be eliminated. Okay, dude. I cannot believe that though. What? He even turned around? They really are like superheroes to the Zenos. The fact that Goku was struggling, he had to get to Ultra Instinct to get there. Like how could Vegeta have matched him without that much power? Dude, look at those back muscles, bro. Wait, Dispo? He's still tossing Frieza around. This is so rough, man. I don't know, dude.  Because long years. Oh, tell him, baby. Thing is, Dispo kind of has the ultimate defense, which is speed, the ultimate retreat. And then 17 and Gohan versus Tapa. I like these fights that are set up though. They've also been through a lot more in this tournament than he has. Justice. Yeah, they don't have enough synergy. Yup, and tag. Yes. Oh, both. Is he gonna make a sacrifice play? We just need to get as many people out as possible. Legit- If it takes g- Why does he- As long as we get it down to the time limit, we don't want to have to do time limit, but still, we do have the man advantage. Rules say. What does it sound like that? Is he metallic? Oh, he trapped him inside it. Wait. They won't take damage, but they'll be moved. Tapa will be forced to let go. I mean, this thing, honestly, isn't him working in tandem to an extent.  All right, now Goku's tagging in against Jiren. God, he's so menacing, man. He's inching closer and closer. Trying to find an opening. That's true, actually. The most damage that they've done is in, like, hand-to-hand combat, but that was with autonomous Ultra Instinct. Oh, he found one. He's charging something, I think. It looks like it in his hand. Yeah, what is that? That little sparkle. Dude, does Zinno's grow up? I'm more worried if they'll ever become, like, corrupt or anything. Is that valid? He dropped it. He's leaving, like, a landmine or something. He's leaving several. Jiren definitely doesn't see him, or he does. He's pretending to ignore it. Wait, they were landmines? Were landmines? What? I have a bad feeling it's not going to do anything, though. What? He actually jumped that high! Many games up there! He's fast enough to react. Yeah. Oh, I like Goku using Destructo Desk. Yeah, but new long-range attacks don't work. What's the point of throwing those? Maybe if he thinks that Jiren's got his guard down while he's in the air? Top 10 silly billies. Dude, look at this. Bro! He's so agile! Oh, no, oh, no. Oh, my God! Oh, my God! I felt that one, brother! Holy s***! He's charging it. Oh, this just looks so painful! Don't! It was like a magma fist! Oh, oh, what? The Destructo Desk. Am I the silly billie? Wait, how would he have bent it around like Beckham? He's behind him! Oh, my! Yes, sir! Dude, I like the back and forth. They're like a chess match, man. It's beautiful. Oh, wait! I totally forgot about that! I love callbacks like that. It makes those scenes mean so much more back then.  All he has are the shards of rock to jump back up to the arena on. Oh, my God. He's the clown of Smokey Recombs. Booby. I just lost about 20 viewers. Jigachan walks through them. He's going to scare him a little bit. Dude! Dude! Oh, my gosh! He's just tossing him around! Yeah, what do you mean, very long time? Who else has pushed Jiren this far? I need to meet him. There's no way anybody from your universe is this strong, except Jiren. Like, I need to know more about Jiren and his lore, honestly. After this, 100%. Because, I mean, going into the tournament, we knew nothing about it. We knew more about Toppo. I don't mind. I love Toppo. His muscles, like, contracted. No, expanded. He's, like, scared Goku. Like, the amount of power in that blast. It was, like, a lethal bl- or a lethal shot, and he knows it. Tiny glimmer of his actual pa- What do you mean, actual power? Bro. What? That's how much he's holding back? Deal, Smile! What is Jiren? Even the Zenoes are speechless. Even the Pride Troopers! Oh, the fact that Goku's still standing, probably. Oh, man. He's got- Oh! Our boy's back! The prince is back! He's right. Take both of you on at the same time. Dude, Goku and Vegeta inherently working together. Like, they don't even have to say anything. Vegeta's inherently setting aside some of his pride to fight with him. It's so beautiful to hear. Oh, it's s***. The promise to Kava! That's what's powering him right now. Damn. From one second to another. Damn! Bro, the energy. Vegeta's actually power-spiking. No shot. There's no way he gets to alter instinct, though, right? Can he? Then himself, it is far beyond the Super Saiyan. Far beyond! Is it blue still? I can't tell. Oh my gosh, dude, that aura is insane. Do we have a name? Sparkly Vegeta? I can barely even see his face. Dang, bro. Oh, shoot, here we go. Go, boys, go! You gotta push him. I love them fighting together. It's so beautiful. Like I said, they didn't even have to say anything. It's like an instinct thing. Like, they both know they should. This Vegeta form is so beautiful. I just wish I could see his face better. It's so bright. I can't, really. I mean, oh, there we go. Now we... Oh, no, no, it's still very bright. Like, parts of his face shine so much. They're overpowering him now. Yeah, but that's just gonna push Jiren further. Jiren's off his rhythm. He's making mistakes. Ooh. They don't know what they're doing, so how is he supposed to know what they're doing? Champions of the Saiyan race. This is so sick. No, not... Not backed into a corner, but he's gonna get pushed further. I feel like this is just getting started, man. Especially after in this one, whenever all of the Pride Troopers in, like, that universe, they started giggling and laughing.  Like, that's just a fraction of what he's sort of been hiding this entire time. And I think it's a very tell-tale sign how confident they were in that fact, because they all recognized it at the same time. But that breakdown is true. Like, if Goku and Vegeta aren't completely sure about what they're doing and don't have as coordinated of attacks, it's way harder for Jiren to predict what's gonna happen.  It's like Goku and Vegeta aren't inherently, like, planning out, like, a logical attack together, but instead just throwing out random attacks that can't be really predicted as well, especially since they're not gonna form some sort of pattern seeing as they've never done this before, basically. Especially not at these power levels, man. But dude, it just gets crazier and crazier, and I think we still have eight episodes to go after this, man. And that's not to say that we haven't finished the whole thing with Dispo yet, although it's looking a lot better for Frieza now. Last episode was pretty daunting for him, and this gave us a lot of hope. And the fight against Toppo's a lot more of an uncertainty because Toppo is so strong, but I like the teamwork between Gohan and Android 17. It's just, it's madness every single time. Well, there it is. The one thing that could finally make Goku and Vegeta work together is the literal balance of life itself for their entire universe being on the brink to bring them together, and it's kind of beautiful. Now, Goku and Vegeta, Vegeta powering up last time into this new form. They haven't given a name yet, but it mostly just looks like blue and more shiny and sparkly. Let's get started. And he supposedly has even more to come. I mean, they're pretty confident in him, that he's only shown a fraction of his power. Dude, look at him! I mean, I feel like Jiren's gonna actually have to start taking him more seriously. No, it's a lot shinier. It's a lot more vibrant, his hair and everything. It's not just sparkly. It's like Vegeta and HD. I mean, they're laying into it, but it looks like he's not even breaking a sweat, bro. Like, less than whatever Goku's Ultra Instinct. They're pushing him back, but... Oh, their kayaking looks nervous! I can never tell, bro! No, I think Jiren's looking for an opening, to be honest.  Did he take it? There's no reason for him to. Besides showing off, maybe. He's hit. Wait, a pile of rocks just fell on him? Oh, no. Gulp. Nah, he is gonna start to- Wait. Wait, all those rocks just, like, vanished. You've shown me the true extent of your power. Yeah, whatever. Damn! They ain't faltering at all! Jiren's finally up in his game. So I guess I'll do the same. The Dispo and Frieza. Like I said, this fight's a lot closer than I thought. I thought the only one we're super outmatched on was Goku and Vegeta versus Jiren, but Toppo's doing really well, too. I give credit where I vote. Wow! How am I supposed to follow this? Shoot!  He has like an aura to him now. Unless there's just, like, to exaggerate his speed. Oh my gosh. Nah, he's gonna be faking it. Oh, yeah! Thank you! Thank you! I was right! He did it again! The same move! Infinitesimal? Couldn't Dispo just run with him again? That's what he did last? Oh, never mind. There's no guarantee that he wins. Hmm. It's okay. Oh! I like how he said just him. And the agreement between Vegeta and Cabba was the entire universe. He's gonna help them win. Oh my gosh! I don't think it is. I think he sees how strong Jiren is. Okay, we might actually be screwed if Frieza starts fighting against us. I mean, there's no reason for Dispo not to take it though, right? Because it's not like he has to jump out or anything. He's just like, yeah, I'll fight with you guys as long as you wish me back. He's gonna say yes. Oh! Dang! Okay, Dispo! Hey, I gave some respect for him for that.   He's going golden, baby! Actually, yeah, I just realized he hasn't been fighting gold yet. My god, that's bright. They have used this exact same animation of him going golden four times! It is pretty marvelous though. I don't blame them. The pillar so far through the arena, I just realized. Yeah, he's been holding this like in this card the entire time. He's an ace in the hole. I feel like Dispo's gonna power up though. Like there's no way that's like Dispo's done all he could. And now he's just completely outmatched by Frieza. I don't know. It'd be a little bit of a letdown. Like if he has to have like Toppo or Jiren coming to save him. There's only three pride troopers, bro. He's got to give it everything. Try to resist any way you like. Goldy. Oh. What? Oh my god. Oh my gosh! Yo, you're gonna need a lot more Dispo. Oh, shoot! Oh my gosh. Is he actually faster than him now? That's Dispo's whole thing. Frieza's fast, but his whole thing isn't speed. Oh, hold. Hold. Oh, shoot. Let's see it, Dispo. I'm not cheering for him, but I want more. He's faster! He's faster! I mean, you can't give it your all until you really need to. It's not new form. He's just even faster. It may as well inherently be a new form. He's like in multiple places at once. Dispo has unveiled his ultimate technique. That's it. I would have already called him super light speed, to be honest. Slow-mo cameras! Bro, who is capturing? What cameras are capturing this? It's too fast for slow-mo! Dispo has achieved a rate of speed. They're like asked them to fight slower so Zeno can watch. Yeah, how do you have a shortcoming? What do you mean, next gen? Just make it now. Just manifest it. How is their tech outdated? I love how they're just slowly fighting to the edge of the arena. What, you gonna back up Frieza? Dude, go on, step it in for Frieza, bro. Lovely little surprise indeed.  Just shut up, man. Oh, yeah, I don't think Dispo stands a chance now. I'm gonna be honest. He's flying with a 1v2? Oh my gosh, the confidence in this man is crazy. Yep. It doesn't just, like, sucker punch Gohan for no reason.  Like, why would he betray him now? What could the plan possibly be beyond that? There's no other universe for him to work with. Now his ego's kind of hurt, too, you can tell. What did Gohan realize something? I think he saw an opening. Draw me. I can't believe he's actually taking Gohan's orders inherently. I'm surprised he's able to. That's exactly what they wanted. What is he doing? It's like a cage. Oh, shoot. Bro's been like laser dance out of it. It's an actual cage match, bro. That is gas. Oh my gosh, Frieza. It's strategy. Show him his force. Oh, shoot. It's a risk, bro, because then you can get hit by the cage, too.  I don't think he can finish the job in the cage, though. Like, look how much Frieza's struggling. He's doing so much. I respect Frieza for this. He usually put it in the word. Oh, no. Oh, shoot. Frieza, you just had to fall like one second longer, man. It's like a finishing blow. He was, oh. He's going to blow both of them away. Of course, Frieza would agree to that. He would love the chance to just smack Gohan with a beam. Oh, Dispo's out! And Gohan! No, no, no. That was smart, though. To trade one for one. You have the man advantage, still. There's no reason not to. I agree. Trading one for one. Dang, bro. Only two Pride Troopers left. And Frieza's still in, too. I mean, he has to recover for a bit, though. He just used so much energy. Dad's proud. Dispo's been disposed of. I got just the way he stands there, bro. Like, what is that explosion in the background even from? Six. Yeah, one minute per episode. Not that. My goodness, man. I mean, with how few fighters there are left, now every time one's eliminated, it's just like cataclysmic, basically. Because every fighter counts at this point, and there are two standing in the way of us winning the entire tournament of power. But out of the three Pride Troopers, I did think that Dispo was probably the weakest or would be the easiest to take care of, as opposed to Jiren and Toppo. Because both of them, I mean, we haven't really seen Toppo do that much, but he was holding his own against Goku at the Zeno Expo. And I mean, I feel like every fighter sort of has an ace in the hole at this point, and we've seen probably a fraction of what Jiren's doing, and I guess not much from Toppo at all. And we have a general idea of how strong our universe's fighters are, but it's about how strong they can get, and especially if Goku can tap in the Ultra Instinct again. And for how long he can. But a really solid moment. I love Gohan and Frieza working together it's very beautiful. And not even just them working together, but the way they did it. Like I said, it makes so much sense that Frieza would agree to it now. I was like, oh, that's shocking that he would take orders from Gohan. But realistically, he's like, oh yeah, the chance to blow Gohan away with a beam. Sign me up, baby. Get this saying out of here. Guys, that has been it for me today. We only have seven left, I believe, after this. So drop us up on the channel if you are new. And I'll catch you in the next one. Peace, peace.


Welcome to my talk. The title of this presentation is optimal broadcast encryption from LWE and pairings in the standard model. I'm Shota Yamada, and this is a joint work with Shweta Agrawal and Daniel Weeks. Since this talk is about broadcast encryption, I'm going to explain the notion of broadcast encryption. Let us consider a system which consists of capital N users. Furthermore, let us consider a user who wants to encrypt a message for a subset of users. Namely, this user prepares the message and encrypt it to obtain a ciphertext. And this ciphertext should be decryptable for the intended receivers. However, the ciphertext should not be decryptable for a user who is outside of the intended users. Furthermore, the users cannot obtain any information of the message even if the users outside of the intended recipient set collude. We call this security notion collusion resistance and require this notion by default. A trivial solution to construct broadcast encryption is to prepare public key for each user by playing public key encryption scheme. Then, when we encrypt a message for a subset of users, we encrypt the message by the public keys corresponding to the users. However, this solution requires long ciphertext, which is linear in the number of users in the system, in the worst case. We are interested in a co-instruction with shorter ciphertext. Let us summarize the previous works on broadcast encryption. Here, we focus on the size of parameters. The trivial construction I explained in the previous slide requires master public key and ciphertext whose sizes are linear in the number of users. The first fully collision resistant broadcast encryption schemes with short ciphertext were proposed by Bonnet, Gentry and Waters. In their construction, the ciphertext and the secret key are constant size. However, the drawback of the scheme is that the master public key is linear in N. To mitigate the problem, they also propose a construction which has shorter master public key at the cost of longer ciphertext size. Since then, the construction of broadcast encryption scheme whose parameter sizes are all constant had been an open problem for about 10 years. The first construction with such parameter size was proposed by Bonnet, Waters and Gentry. The drawback of the construction is that it requires multi-linear maps, which requires strong assumption to instantiate. Later, Gentry also proposed a construction based on indistinguishability of classification, but it still requires strong assumption. To remove the necessity of indistinguishability of classification and base the scheme on formal security assumptions, two schemes have been proposed recently. Brackersky and the Weigundanden proposed a construction from lattices. However, the scheme lacks formal security proof. Agrawal and Yamada proposed a construction from binding maps and lattices and proved its security. However, the proof is in binding agent group model, which is heuristic. In this work, we improve Agrawal and Yamada's construction and give a construction that can be proven secure in the standard model. A caveat is that even though the construction is in the standard model, it requires strong assumption, as I will explain in more details. Here, I explain our result in more details. We propose broadcast encryption with optimal parameter size in the sense that all parameters in the system are constant from binding a map and LW assumption in the standard model. More generally, we constructed Syphatext Policy Attribute-Based Encryption and CPABE for NC1 circuits with some special efficiency property that I explained later. Selective security of the scheme is shown from a variant of the caller assumption introduced by Baolens and We on binding a groups. In fact, this assumption is a knowledge type assumption which is not very desirable. However, we believe that this is a significant improvement over the previous work because it is in the standard model. Along the way, we simplify and modularize the ideas from Agrawal and Yamada's construction. Because we construct CPABE for NC1 circuits, I'm going to explain the notion. In the CPABE for NC1 circuits, or ABE in general, there are master public key and master secret key. Using the master public key, one can encrypt a message for some circuit C. This circuit C specifies the policy regarding who can decrypt the Syphatext. Using the master secret key, one can generate a secret key for some specific attribute X. X, in this case, is an input to circuit, which is some string. And the decryption is possible if and only if C of X equals to 1. Namely, if C of X equals to 1, one can decrypt the Syphatext to retrieve the message using the secret key. And if C of X equals to 0, the decryption should not be possible. And this should be the case even if the unauthorized users collude. We require the collision-resistant property similar to the broadcast encryption case. Now I'm going to explain our approach in high level. In the first step, we reduce the construction of optimal broadcast encryption to CPABE for NC1 circuits with with independent efficiency. The meaning of the with independent efficiency will be explained in the later slide. In the next step, we construct the CPABE for NC1 circuits from the combination of AW assumption and by linear group model. Now I'm going to explain the first step. In fact, this step is the same as the previous works. Here I'm going to explain that we can construct broadcast encryption from CPABE for NC1 circuits if the latter has some special efficiency property to generate a secret key for user index J in broadcast encryption. We use the key generation algorithm of the CPABE to generate a secret key for the same index J where J is interpreted as a binary string. To encrypt a message for a set of users or a set of recipient S, we encrypt the message under the circuit F sub S which is defined as follows using the encryption algorithm of the CPABE. The function F sub S takes us user index J as input and output 1 if J is in the set S and 0 otherwise. It is easy to see that CPABE with this encoding actually implements the functionality of broadcast encryption. To have an efficient construction, we use the following specific circuit to implement F sub S. The circuit takes J in binary form and compare it with each indexing S in parallel one by one. If any of them equals, it outputs 1 and otherwise 0. It is straightforward to see that this circuit indeed implements F sub S. This circuit in fact has the following nice property. Namely, the circuit has short input length which is only logarithmic in N. Also, its depth is shallow due to the parallel computation which is also logarithmic. However, it has very wide width. This suggests that if we have a CPABE scheme whose parameter size is independent from width of the circuit supported by the scheme, this implies broadcast encryption scheme with compact parameter size since the circuit is compact except for its width. In the following, we focus on the construction of such CPABE scheme. Next, I am going to explain the second step. Here, we construct CPABE for NC1. In this step, we diverge from the approach of Ay20. In Ay20, we construct ABE using a combination of specific algebraic techniques on bilinear maps. On the other hand, in our work, we implement the step using three components in more modular manner, though it is similar to Ay20 in high level. Our approach can be seen as a refinement of that of Ay20. Now, I am going to explain three components that we use in the construction of our ABE scheme. The first ingredient is secret sharing scheme with certain succinctness condition on the size of shares. This secret sharing scheme can be constructed from LWE. The next ingredient is hyperplane obfuscation. This is constructed using bilinear maps and proven secure under the bilinear quarer assumption. The final ingredient is the functional encryption for Adamard product. This can be constructed using bilinear maps and proven secure under standard assumptions such as matrix DDH assumption. Now, I am going to explain the first ingredient. I first explain the syntax and the security notion of ordinary secret sharing scheme and then explain special properties that we require. The sharing algorithm of the secret sharing scheme takes as input an NC1 circuit C that specifies the policy and the message to obtain a set of shares. For simplicity, we assume that the message is one bit. The output consists of two L shares where L is the input length of the circuit. We consider subset of shares in a specific form. In particular, we consider a subset which is obtained by choosing one share from each column. Such subset can be associated with binary string X of length L. We denote the subset associated with X as S sub X. The reconstruction algorithm takes as input C, X and S sub X and outputs message or bot. As correctness requirement, we require that reconstruction algorithm recovers the message when C of X equals to one. As for the security requirement, we require that the shares does not leak any information of the message if C of X equals to zero. As for the efficiency requirement, we require that these algorithms are efficient. In our work, we need stronger properties for each requirement. As for the correctness, we need stronger requirement that the reconstruction algorithm can be divided into two steps. In the first step, the algorithm first applies a linear function computed from C and X on shares S sub X. We require that the result should be in the form of message times some constant plus polynomially bounded size noise. In the second step, we can recover a message by removing the noise. We also require stronger notion for the security. We require that S sub X is suitable random if C of X equals to zero. Instead of just requiring, they hide the information of the message. Finally, we require stronger efficiency requirement that stipulates that the size of the share S sub X is independent from the width of the circuit C. This will be useful for constructing ABE with independent parameter size. I briefly explain how we instantiate the secret sharing scheme. Basically, the construction is obtained by modifying the ABE scheme by Bonnet et al. that we call BGG+. The construction matches the syntax of secret sharing scheme because of certain decomposability condition of BGG+. The security of the construction directly follows from that of BGG+. Also, the efficiency of the construction follows from the succinctness of secret keys of BGG+. In actual construction, the syntax and the construction are a bit more complex. We incorporate the ideas from QWW18 due to technical reasons. We refer to the paper for the details. Then, at the first attempt, we try to construct an ABE scheme by combining C.R. Olegl and Sahai's idea with the secret sharing scheme. To set up, we prepare two L public keys of the plain public key encryption scheme. These public keys will be the master public key of the ABE scheme and master secret key of the ABE scheme is the corresponding secret keys. To encrypt a message for a policy that is specified by circuit C, we first secret share the message and C to obtain two L shares. We then encrypt the shares using the corresponding position of the public key. The secret key for a string X is the subset of all secret keys of plain public key encryption that corresponds to the string X. Using the secret key to decrypt the ciphertext, the decryptor first recovers S of X by decrypting the ciphertext of the PKE using the corresponding position of the secret key. If C of X equals to 1, then the decryptor can recover the message from S of X. While this construction satisfies correctness and with independent compactness of parameters, this is not secure. This is because if two users whose attributes are all their string and all one string collude, they can recover all the secret keys of the PKE. Now I'm going to explain how to add collision resistance by modifying the construction in the previous slide. Our first idea is instead of letting the decryptor learn S of X, we let it learn hyperplane obfuscation of S of X. Now I'm going to explain what is hyperplane obfuscation. The hyperplane obfuscation allows one to obfuscate a vector V. Given the obfuscated circuit, one can check if the vector V is in an hyperplane or not. But the circuit does not leak any information beyond that. In fact, such obfuscated version of the share S of X is enough for decryption. If C of X equals to 1, we have the following equation. This equation says that the share S of X is in some hyperplane specified by the noise term and the message. Since the noise term is polynomially bounded and the message is 0 or 1, this means that the decryptor can find the hyperplane on which S of X is located by brute force search. In particular, it can recover the message. We then consider what kind of security is required for the hyperplane obfuscation. Since the collusion of uses is allowed, the adversary may recover S of X for multiple X. Even though S of X is individually should run them, multiple S of X are correlated and possibly cause a problem. So the question is what kind of security do we need for the obfuscation to handle this problem? The answer is that we need the following security property. If the VI is individually should run them for all I, we need that the obfuscations of multiple VI are indistinguishable from obfuscation of random vectors even if the set of VI is correlated. I then explain how to instantiate the obfuscation. It turns out that extremely simple construction of obfuscation suffices for our construction. The obfuscation of a vector V consists of g to the r and g to the rv for random r. To check if V is in the hyperplane specified by an affine function h, we check if g to the hv equals to 1 or not, where g to the hv is computable from the group elements by taking linear combination among them. The intuitive reason why this works is that the randomness r prevents the adversary from combining different obfuscation of different vectors to obtain minimum for information. For the construction, we can prove its security and the variant of co-assumption introduced by Buellens and we. The co-assumption we require is as follows. If the adversary distinguishes group elements whose exponents are on some hyperplane from random group elements, then there exists another adversary that outputs a vector that is orthogonal to the hyperplane. This intuitively says that the only way to distinguish the group elements is to find an orthogonal vector to the hyperplane. In fact, the co-assumption introduced by Buellens and we is defined on groups without bilinear maps. However, we require the assumption to hold on bilinear groups. Furthermore, we also require the assumption to hold with auxiliary information while Buellens and we do not. This causes a subtle problem and we refer to the paper for the details. Next, I explain how to combine obfuscator and secret sharing scheme. In our idea, the encryptor generates shares of the message and the circuit C that specifies the policy. We want the decryptor with attribute x to learn the obfuscation of vector is sub x. The question is how do we encrypt the shares so that the decryptor only learns the obfuscation and nothing else? To achieve our goal, we introduce functional encryption for ad-marled product. I then explain what is functional encryption for ad-marled product. In the functional encryption for ad-marled product, a ciphertext encrypts a set of group elements in source group of bilinear maps that encode a matrix. Similarly, a secret key is associated with a set of group elements in source group of bilinear maps that encode a matrix. If we decrypt the ciphertext using the secret key, we obtain an ad-marled product of the matrices on the exponent of the target group. As for the security, we require the ordinary security requirement that the decryptor learns nothing more than the decryption result. We then explain that this suffices for our purpose. Let me explain it using an example. To encrypt a message, we first generate the secret shares. We then lift them to the exponent and encrypt it using the functional encryption. To generate a secret key, we first form a 2 times L matrix as follows. Namely, for each column, we put G sub 2 to the R in the first row if X equals to 0 and put it in the second row otherwise. Then we generate a secret key for this matrix using the key generation algorithm of the functional encryption. If we decrypt the ciphertext using the secret key, we obtain the ad-marled product between the matrices. Removing zero components from the matrix, we recover the obfuscation of the vector S sub X. More generally, the ciphertext and secret key can be written like this. It remains to consider how to instantiate the functional encryption for ad-marled product. We instantiate it using slotted public function encryption scheme for inner product, which is an extension functional encryption for inner product. The reason why we use the former is that we require a kind of simulation-based security. This can be instantiated from standard assumptions like matrix DDH assumption using existing construction. Here, I explain the final construction. To generate master public key and master secret key, we generate master public key and master secret key of the functional encryption for ad-marled product. To encrypt a message, we generate shares of message under the policy C. We then encrypt the shares using the functional encryption for ad-marled product. To generate the secret key, we form the matrix as I explained and generate the secret key of the functional encryption for this matrix. We also append G sub T to the R to the secret key. To decrypt, we execute the decryption algorithm of the functional encryption to recover the obfuscation of a vector sub X. As I explained, we can recover the message from the obfuscation. Here, I explain the intuition for the security proof. First, by the security of the functional encryption, we can guarantee that the adversary only learns the obfuscations of the vectors corresponding to the crafted attributes. Then, we can show that each vector sub X is sued random by the security of the secret sharing scheme. Finally, by the security of hyperplane obfuscation and by the fact that each individual vector is sued random, the obfuscations are computationally indistinguishable from the obfuscations of random vectors. Since obfuscations of random vectors do not leak any information of the message, the security follows. Here, we briefly discuss the security of our construction. Even though we prove the security in the standard model, we still require strong knowledge type assumption. The advantage of our proof over the proof in the bi-linear group model is that we allow the adversary to use representation of group elements to attack the scheme. This difference is similar to the difference between algebraic group model and generic group model. Let me conclude. In our work, we constructed the CP-ABE with independent parameter size from secret sharing with compacted shares from LW assumption, hyperplane obfuscation from a variant of Coal assumption, and slotted functional encryption for inner product from MDH assumption. This implies optimal broadcast encryption from bi-linear maps and LWE in the standard model. The construction from more standard assumption is still open. Thank you for your attention.


First of all, thank you so much for coming, thank you to Fosden, thank you to the open-source design collective for making this talk possible. My name is Felipe, I work with Theronet. It is a Swedish RID company focused on mesh networks, direct connectivity, automotive sensors. Before that, I used to work at Igalia, working in the Nokia family of Linux devices, the non desktop and a bit on Android. I studied software engineering, human-computer interaction in the UK, and later on interaction design in Sweden. I work on mobile. Part of my work is to create demos and prototypes to communicate the useful of these direct connectivity technologies, and it has given me the chance to reflect about how we can find out what we can create with this technology. I have to apologize because I'm going to show some prototypes, but they are not free software. They are prototypes and I don't have a problem if you get in touch with me to explain you how they work or how some of the problems that they solve are solved. The direct connectivity is there's the ability to create networks directly between two or more devices without needing any other infrastructure or access to the internet. There are several ways to do this, some that you might already know about, and there's a couple of new ones, Wi-Fi Aware, which is what I am using for the examples here, and at some point in the future there will also be a 5G device to device. And why is this something that might be relevant? Well, because from my point of view, this technology bit by bit becoming fast enough, convenient enough, flexible enough that they enable new interactions and new kinds of solutions. So the question is how can we start to find out what are these new interactions and new solutions. This is a bit like exploring a new space, a new design space. You don't know what things might be out there and you have to feel your way around it. And my main point here in this talk is that in order to carry out this kind of exploration, you need to be switching continuously between the perspective of the engineer, of the one who understands the technology and thinkers with it and plays with it, and the perspective of the designer, the one that takes care of real users, finds real world problems to solve. Most importantly, you have to be taking a moment to reflect after each step to see what you have learned from these two perspectives and how you can use it to bring your work forward. I realize that this is kind of a niche area, so I don't expect all of you to just jump into it after this talk. But what I hope is that by showing you some of the explorations that I have been doing, you might be able to extract some ideas, some guidelines that could be useful for your own work. So let's start from the point of view of engineering. We look at this new technology called Wi-Fi AWARE, which is the implementation of a new Wi-Fi standard. There's two main implementations that I know about. One is with Qualcomm and Google for Android, which is as many things in Android open source but actually developed behind closed doors. And then there's an Intel Wi-Fi card that is supported in Linux, but the support for Wi-Fi AWARE is apparently still experimental. From the point of view of somebody designing an application with this, there's basically three things that you have to take into account. Wi-Fi AWARE allows you to have a very flexible discovery process where the devices announce the service that they are signed up for and they can distribute small amounts of data with these announcements. They can exchange small messages without needing to create a connection and they can create connections but only between two devices. Connections are one to one and there's only a limited number of simultaneous connections. So that's it. That's the material. How do you find out what to do with it? Well, as a starting point I built a small tool that just Wi-Fi AWARE to discover other devices and to connect to them and this helped me a lot in testing and understanding the API. So you can see how the devices have discovered each other and then when you tap on them you create a connection. So if I now take the IP of the remote device and start another application and paste that IP I should be able to use that application over Wi-Fi AWARE. This almost never works. I found one application where it does work and that application is Open Arena. A part of a desktop game using the Quake 3 engine that happens to be the only application that I found that can be used out of the box on top of Wi-Fi AWARE. So those three forms are not connected to a Wi-Fi. Of them are connected to the central node, the one that created the game and they are just playing on top of it. Other applications don't work because Wi-Fi AWARE uses IP6 addresses with a scope with the name of the network interface attached to it and a lot of applications try to be too smart. I didn't don't recognize that this is a valid IP that they can use but you know we're all Open Arena works. So something that we have learned here first of all is that the technology works. The API still needs some work. The concrete implementation is still a bit wobbly, a bit unstable but it's working and it's getting more stable. There seems to be work to do then in better APIs and improving the support of other applications and libraries and one interesting thing is that I mentioned that there's a discovery process where you announce the service that you offer. In Android right now you can announce anything. You can claim that you are Facebook or even worse you can be Facebook. I'm going to talk a bit after that about it later but there's some work there to make sure that this remains useful while also protecting the privacy and the security of the users. Now we change perspective and we approach it from the design point of view. From the design point of view we follow the usual design process when you research design prototype test evaluate and this last step of evaluation of critique is really important when you're doing one of these kind of explorations because what you learn is really what you want to take away from the whole for your whole work because what you are looking for in this exploration is a guideline a map that you can use in your future work. So I first got in touch with this field when I was studying in Sweden. Terran had contacted the university to do a master's project designing an application to do presentations using their mesh network. So I started researching and I saw a few I got a few interesting insights from this research phase. Presentations are usually one way linear one person one set of slides as I am doing now. So allowing people to share their own content became one of the main goals of the design. I want you to let people do that and the presentation became something a bit different becomes a collaborative medium. We also saw that in meetings there's a bit of social choreography at the beginning where people read each other say hands and so on and we thought about a way of using that of getting the people tap their their phones and tapping those phones would create the network but also mark kind of the start of the of the meeting and then when we did some testing I want to show you I did a small prototype back in 2015. An interesting thing to say is that a lot of the behavior is simulated although all the devices have all the images at the beginning and they just exchange small messages saying which image has to be displayed at each time. But this worked well enough that I was able to do presentations like this at university and in doing that we saw that when people can interrupt and add their own content the presentation becomes something much more inclusive and more shared and it was a good way of getting people to talk. So after that I continued working with Terranet to bring this application to life. Here is using NFC to create the network. We're going to be seeing an interesting presentation on cats. I was exploring and adding what functionality that could make sense for this kind of experience. So in this case for example I added live drawings. I also integrated the cameras so you can take a photo and then it is immediately shared by the other phones. But here you see it working with three devices and there's also some interesting things that you can do with something like this which is for example you can have poles instead of people raising their hands you can have them do it in their phones. So it was a nice prototype which was very useful for communication for showing what the technology can do. We saw that it was very useful also for sketching quickly other use cases for sketching drawing application for example annotating how would sharing the camera would work etc. We also saw that it was very hard to get people to get this if they are trying it on their own because obviously they need two devices and the mental model that you need to have here is different from how we usually use our phones. So working on top of these lessons I created a much smaller more focused tool that just uses this tapping gesture to create the network and exchange the data quickly. So it's a very simple very fluid interaction you just share your tap and it and it goes. But the nice thing about this tapping gesture is that it allows you to ground the interaction it gives an explanation as to why this only works when you are very close together.  So that's something I have been working on recently a few areas that I wanted to explore in the in the future is first as I mentioned improve privacy because for demos you don't really care that you are advertising user IDs, user names, applications etc. But in a real-world scenario this could be misused in many many many ways. So what we or what I would like to find is a way for your friends to find you but without anybody else knowing that you are you. So that's something that I think there should be a solution that is open and free software and that people can try and test it and see if there's any any problems with it. Another thing that I've been working on is video streaming because there's some interesting use cases when you can share cameras in real time you can take photos with somebody else's camera if you and your friend are taking a video or something of something you can be switching perspectives in the video that you are recording. I thought this would be easy to prototype it turns out when I started testing different libraries and different protocols that it's not that easy WebRTC or VLC for example I couldn't get them to work I'm still working on it but there's probably some work left to do there. The last one is the automotive sector the basic idea here is that if you can detect other pedestrians because of their cell phone or if you can detect another car you can have a car that can see around corners. If you know you're going to turn to the right but you get a signal from somebody who's crossing the street the car can already detect that and warn you even before you make the turn. So as a summary of what this means for design with direct connectivity I would say that there's a very interesting opportunity here for tools that are aware of the people that we have around us and that can support us when we are collaborating with them in a way that can take advantage of the context and can be more private than a solution where all your data by default is being sent back and forth to a remote server on the internet. This technology doesn't fit every use case so there has to be some working looking at which scenarios fit it better and there's work to do in finding the right mental model for users so they can understand that this technology works with people that you are nearby people that you are touching people that are close to you because otherwise it's hard to get them on board if you don't communicate you don't embed this mental model in the solution that you are creating and about the exploration process in itself while being switching perspectives because you need to combine an understanding of the technology especially in this case in the case of a new technology you have to have a good understanding of what the technology can do so you can then decide what you want to do with it and you also have to ground it in real use cases solving real problems and presenting the solutions in a way that people can understand easily having these two questions in mind you have to tell people why they should use something and why they need to or what they need to understand in order to use it and that's it thank you very much if you are interested in this working in this want to think with it or anything like that please get in touch I the last link is my blog in the coming days I will have the transcription of the talk and the video seeing better definition yeah thank you very much


Ahoy there, here's what's new in DevTools in Chrome 81. First up, Device Mode now supports Moto G4. Click toggle device toolbar, then open the device list and select Moto G4. DevTools resizes the viewport to the dimensions of a Moto G4 device. Click more options, then select show device frame to show Moto G4 hardware around the viewport. Click the throttling list and select low-end mobile to throttle your network and CPU to more accurately simulate a typical mobile browsing experience. The cookies pane in the application panel now displays blocked cookies and lets you edit values. Here in this table, the blocked cookies have a yellow background and I can enable the only blocked checkbox to only show blocked cookies. To edit a value, double-click a cell. The only value that's not editable is the size column because that represents the network size of the cookie in bytes. The new copy as nojs fetch command lets you copy a fetch expression to the clipboard that includes cookie data. Right-click a network request and select copy copy as nojs fetch and DevTools copies a fetch expression to your clipboard. When I paste the expression into the console, you can see that the header's object contains a cookie field. To be honest, I don't know why the nojs command needs to include cookie data, but I'll find out and give an explanation in the comments section of this video. The manifest pane in the application panel now shows the exact same icon that Chrome uses. Previously, DevTools would perform its own network requests which would occasionally result in DevTools showing a slightly different icon than Chrome. You can now hover over CSS content properties to see unescaped values. After I right-click and inspect this node, I see the escape value of the content property in the styles pane. If I hover over that value, I see the unescape value. The console now provides more details on why a source map failed to load or parse. Previously, it would just log an error without explaining what went wrong. There's now a setting for disabling the default behavior of scrolling past the end of a file in the sources panel. Here in this file, when I scroll down, I can scroll well past the end of the file. To disable this default behavior, I press F1 and then disable the allow scrolling past end of file checkbox. Now, I can't scroll past the end of the file. Here's a bonus tip. DevTools has a lot of hidden features. An easy way to explore them is to press escape to open the drawer, then click more tools. Each of these options represents a tab with features. For example, search gives you a global search UI and quick sources is a way to view the source of a file while you've got another panel open. Thanks for watching. See you in six weeks for Chrome 82.


Everybody for us here with being 21 22 upper deck credentials hockey hoppy ten bucks number two random teams. Good luck They like combined some for sure Tyler. It's it's very interesting random now, and then we'll do the rip in the same Recording here guys that is a six names first one Two three four five and six Troy H down to Richard H and then the teams now one Two three four five and six penguins down to sharks Troy H pens Jason are redwings Jonathan B Kings Flames Michael W Hawkes Brandon S. Oilers Brody C stars James K. Wilde Jonathan B Blues Kevin S. Devils Richard H abs Troy H. Canadians Michael R Jets Nicholas M. Bruins Dan R with the Ducks Jonathan B predators Michael W. Canes Ken S lightning Kevin S. Leafs Brody C Kraken D. W. The Senators Tyler M. Rangers Darren O. Jackets Joseph S. Flyers Brandon S. Knights Jason our coyotes DW Panthers Kevin S Capitals DW Sabres Paul B Islanders Brandon S. Canucks Richard H sharks get those posts. It will start now Get your link give me one sec Yeah, they don't have the license puka Yeah, well credentials. This is the first time credentials has released since like the 1920 year or was it 1819? It was one of those years hadn't released in a while They just didn't do it. I guess All right getting closer guys. Let's fill up these breaks 11 ago on iMac collegiate and NT two box mixer number five right here and Again, if we fill up every single break tonight, we will do it random at the end between all break spots here for a 100 silver packs the IP silver packs From the national here we go. They're doing the jerseys. Yeah, but they don't have licensing to make NHL cards Yeah, they can try on a choir, but I think that's Nothing against the NHL. I love hockey my favorite sports to watch and enjoy but I Just don't think they care a whole lot at the moment anyway at the moment They got a lot of other things going on Debut ticket to 149 Hardman for this for the Hawks So there's two base on the front base on the back a Numbered card or a hit and then like another insert in the middle here Isaac Phillips to 999 debut Hawks. Don't do hashtag Illuminati in here. Come on now Nice the 35 Sabres credentials debut ticket auto Luca pecca lucan in We'll go back a look at it Awesome hit for the Sabres. They're very nice. Actually illegal is really trying to get time down tonight Drew O'Connor pens to 999 debut of Kenny because net sob number to 75 for the capitals God devils Alexander Holtz speed of the game debut ticket is lassie Thompson number to 999 for the senators legal, why don't you go work for fanatics? Jake neighbors Rookie speed of the game for the blues Yeah, leave him go work at a That's cuz he worked for now. I'd say they probably need to clean the suit the floor Take out the trash a Shonja job though Colorful character Chevrolet Z grass ducks Rookie insert there That's 11 to go NT hobby and I'm a collegiate football hobby all the mixture there Daniel Miromanov Miromanov to 999 for the Knights speed of the game Matthew Phillips go into the Flames the rookie there Got Arthur Kaleev Kings nice number to 99 If you take it got a Mika Lehtinen to 999 debut for the Leafs Got a debut ticket clear to 249 Joey Keane for the Keynes Anybody got any minor league hockey near them or any like NH or any hockey they go to a lot to watch 799 is Kailin Addison debut for the wilds You're gonna get the LSC game to go to more Orlando Solar Bears games 75 of Etchkin for the caps and expensive to get in for like 20 bucks Spend more on two beers The damn Everblades do that's the that's Orlando's rival the Florida Everblades Jonas Ronsburg to 99 Knights debut Sarnia Sting Mike Hardman debut to 999 Hawks Well, you got the OHL see that see that's that's good. That's good minor league hockey right there OHL That's probably the best what minor league hockey in the world Jake Wallman auto nice one there for the Blues There's not like levels or just different minor leagues that and different teams have affiliations with NHL squads here and there and some Are like you know independent Nolan foot debut ticket to 799 for the Devils But it's kind of like that Blake. It's not as structured pasta number 2199 Bruins To Brinkett speed of the game the Hawks there still a hawk in this product of course Emile Larmy debut ticket to 999 penguins Speed of the game is Perunovic for the Blues Got Keondre Miller debut to 149 for the Rangers where the Everblades play Paul Debut ticket Samuel sin Sabres To 999 we're taking LSE gang on the road. We're gonna we're gonna have a street brawl with the Everblades fans The bears and the blades face down in the parking lot for sure Got Pinto Auto to 45 senators Shane Pinto. That's a pretty nice hit actually It is on card good rookie to Sends nice one prophetic speed of the game Jets Stuart Skinner debut in 999 Oilers Yeah, Pinto is good not the highest ceiling, but yeah, definitely a definitely a good player to 299 Ryan O'Reilly for the Blues He will be in NHL forward for a while. Got Troy Terry speed of the game for the Ducks Johnny Hacompa To 299 for the Ducks hurts core HQ. I don't know they were in Fort Myers Conor McMichael caps to 10 number to 10 Conor McMichael Capital's nice card Kacheb to 999 for the Kings Clear to 25 view from the glass put a cold zine for the Canucks. It's kind of a cool one Debut ticket Brett Murray Sabres to 999 Carter Hart flyers number to 249 Quinton byfield speed of the game for the Kings Isaac Phillips Hawks to 999 speed of the game Tomasino for the Predators My guys NT football and NT and I'm at collegiate. We got to get those filled up So coming up a little later Actually not too far from now really 11 and 23 on NT football and I'm at collegiate two boxers 20 to go on NT football full-case random teams Three to go on a division still Let's do it 100 silver packs if we can get all those breaks filled up 100 silver packs Alexander Gilles into 99 for the flames Yegor Shinnokov to 799 Blues Shinnokov, I would say that is a Cody glass 25 on-card debut ticket access.  There's some good autos in this stuff Nicholas Malosh to 999 debut ticket sharks Grubauer to 199 Seattle Tyce Thompson the speed of the game rookie Ryan McLeod Oilers to 999 debut Lindell rookie speed of the game Panthers Logan Thompson Knights to 149 Vitek Vanachek debut ticket to 799 capitals Kaelin Addison to 299 auto for the wild Dardan Mania, it will be a mania Summing up or decking get products out Peterson to 999 for the stars Suzuki number to 249 Montreal put Colzine rookie speed of the game for the Canucks Vladimir Kachev to 999 for the Kings Lucas Raymond speed of the game. All right guys still sitting on those spots 1123 20 and 3 and see football. I'm at collegiate two box breaks got a debut ticket to 199 Ottinger for the Stars nice one there for the stars Camdenine to 999. Yolts, but Colzine auto to 49 now for the Canucks. Whoa, that is a wild looking Whatever you want to call that that is that's pretty cool Go Canucks Yeah, I can imagine Drew But Tyus Brohm to 999 for the For the Devils Nico Mikula to 999 blues Cawfield speed of the game rookie for the Canadians David Kass is it Kassa a case to 999 for the for the Flyers Seth Jarvis with the Speed of the game. All right two more boxes here Best of luck everybody. Thank you very much for joining Hopefully get these breaks filled up and you put all these names in a randomizer later for some silver packs God, good row flames to 299 Panera and Pro Visions Rangers Bret Murray Sabres to 999 debut Speed of the game. Ah ho for the Canes Logan Stanley Jets nice one there to 999 Logan Stanley David Kass or case to 999 again for the Flyers 249 debut clear Jacob Bernard Docker for the Senators Connor DeWar on the debut to 999 for the Wilds. All right last box coming up last box coming up That is Brody with a spot in NT collegiate or sorry NT and I'm at collegiate to boxer appreciate your Brody Thanks for hanging out tonight Down to 10. All right Queen Hughes to 199 Canucks Got a Garrett Pilon rookie speed of the game capitals Connor DeWar number to 999 again for the Wild Speed of the game Kane Frederick Hanmark number to 149 for the Sharks Joe Valeno number to 999. There you go redwinks. Did you get a graded Brody? By raw Ryan Souter numbered Sorry, not numbered Main stage signature is going to the stars Ryan Souter and to 799 Seth Jarvis for the Canes Real quick auto recap. We had the Ryan Souter a Vassily Pocozine Kalen Addison a Cody glass to 25 to 45 with Shane Pinto That's one sends Jake Wallman and to 35 was a ukepeka Luke it in All right. Thank you all very much pretty fun product. They're moving on now to some football