Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Mutual Information Minimization for Side-Channel Attack Resistance via Optimal Noise Injection

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper derives closed-form optimal artificial-noise allocations for side-channel defense and shows that non-uniform injection beats uniform allocation.

desk verdict Solid Gaussian-case results, but Theorem 5's max-MI allocation for arbitrary inputs only holds when every subchannel has the same normalized input distribution—an assumption the paper never states. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20556 v5 pith:US46MAEB submitted 2025-04-29 cs.CR

Jiheon Woo , Donggyun Ryu , Daewon Seo , Young-Sik Kim , Namyoon Lee , Yuval Cassuto , Yongjune Kim This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR MSC 94A1594A1790C25
keywords side-channelattacksartificialnoiseinjectionmutualinformationminimizationI-MMSErelationGaussianchannelcapacitywater-fillingpowerallocationAES-128analysiskeyrecoverysuccessrate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that spreading artificial-noise power evenly across a side-channel trace is suboptimal. Viewing each sampled point as an independent Gaussian subchannel $Y_i = X_i + Z_i + N_i$ with signal power $P_i$, physical-noise variance $Z_i$, and injected-noise variance $N_i$, it minimizes either the total mutual information $\sum_i \log(1 + P_i/(N_i+Z_i))$ or the worst-case mutual information under a total-noise budget $N_0$. For Gaussian inputs the minimizers are closed-form: a dual water-filling rule for total leakage and an SNR-equalizing rule $N_i^* = \max(0, P_i/\kappa - Z_i)$ for worst-case leakage. For arbitrary inputs, convexity conditions are derived from the I-MMSE relation, and the worst-case rule is argued to be input-distribution-free. The practical payoff claimed is that the same security can be achieved with less injected noise, which matters for battery-powered devices.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the I-MMSE identity $\frac{d}{d\rho} I(\rho) = \frac12\,\mathrm{mmse}(\rho)$, which converts derivatives of mutual information with respect to SNR into MMSE expressions and makes the KKT conditions for noise allocation tractable even when the input distribution is non-Gaussian. Around it sit the convexity conditions of Theorem 3 -- $\mathrm{mmse}(\rho)+\frac{d}{d\rho}(\rho\,\mathrm{mmse}(\rho))\ge 0$, equivalently $\frac{d}{d\rho}(\rho J(Y))\le 1$ or $\mathbb{E}[(\frac{d^2}{dY^2}\log f(Y))^2]\le 1$ -- and the data-processing upper bound $I(U;Y^m)\le \sum_i I(X_i;Y_i)$ that turns leakage minimization into a sum of independent subchannel problems. The optimality conditions in Theorems 1, 2, 4, and 5 are all KKT stationary points expressed through these objects.

What would settle it

Construct two parallel subchannels with equal signal power and equal physical-noise variance but different input distributions, for example Gaussian and binary, and compare the worst-case allocation $N_i=\max(0,P_i/\kappa-Z_i)$ against a brute-force numerical minimization of $\max_i I_i(P_i/(N_i+Z_i))$ under the same budget; if the brute-force optimum gives a lower maximum mutual information, the claimed distribution-free optimality fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that information leakage through side channels can be treated as a power-allocation problem, and the optimal allocation of artificial noise is non-uniform. In the Gaussian model, minimizing the upper bound $\sum_i I(X_i;Y_i)$ subject to $\sum_i N_i \le N_0$ is convex, and the KKT conditions give the dual water-filling allocation of Theorem 1: inject noise into subchannel $i$ until $1/(N_i^*+Z_i) - 1/(N_i^*+Z_i+P_i) = \nu$, leaving $N_i^*=0$ when $\nu \ge 1/Z_i - 1/(Z_i+P_i)$. For the worst-case objective, Theorem 2 gives $N_i^* = \max(0, P_i/\kappa - Z_i)$, which equalizes the SNR $P_i/(N_i+Z_i)$ over the active subchannels. For arbitrary input distributions, Theorem 3 converts convexity into computable MMSE and Fisher-information conditions, Theorem 4 states the KKT condition $P_i/(N_i+Z_i)^2\,\mathrm{mmse}(P_i/(N_i+Z_i)) = \nu$ for total leakage, and Theorem 5 claims the SNR-equalizing worst-case allocation is optimal for any input distribution. The AES-based experiments are offered as evidence that these allocations reduce both mutual information and key-recovery success rates relative to uniform noise at equal power.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that all protected side-channel points have the same mutual-information-versus-SNR curve, so equalizing mutual information is equivalent to equalizing SNR; if the per-point input distributions differ, the distribution-free worst-case formula may not be optimal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For Gaussian leakage points, the dual water-filling allocation strictly outperforms uniform allocation for a given budget, so total information leakage is reduced at no additional power cost.
  • The worst-case rule $N_i^*=\max(0,P_i/\kappa - Z_i)$ concentrates noise on the highest-SNR points and equalizes the residual SNR among the points that receive noise.
  • For arbitrary input distributions satisfying the convexity conditions, computing the MMSE function and using a one-dimensional bisection on the dual variable yields the global optimum for the total-leakage problem.
  • In the AES-128 experiments, keeping the key-recovery success rate at 0.1 needs roughly 9 percent less noise with the total-leakage rule and 27 percent less with the worst-case rule than uniform allocation.
  • Even when the total-leakage problem is non-convex, the worst-case problem can still be solved because the reformulated max-SNR problem is convex.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: if the worst-case rule is genuinely distribution-free, a defender only needs per-point signal and physical-noise power estimates, not a statistical model of the leakage; this is a consequence the authors leave implicit.
  • Editorial inference: the same KKT machinery could allocate a single noise budget across heterogeneous leakage channels, such as power, electromagnetic, and timing, with each channel carrying its own MMSE function.
  • Editorial inference: the low-SNR argument implies that on very noisy devices the dual water-filling rule applies to nearly any input distribution, which could extend the method beyond cryptographic chips to analog sensors and RF emanation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an information-theoretic framework for allocating artificial noise power across side-channel leakage points. The model is Y_i = X_i + Z_i + N_i with Gaussian physical and artificial noise, a fixed total artificial-noise budget, and subchannel powers P_i. For Gaussian inputs, the authors derive closed-form allocations that minimize the total mutual information (a dual water-filling rule, Theorem 1) and the maximum mutual information (an SNR-equalizing rule, Theorem 2). For arbitrary input distributions, they give convexity conditions via the I-MMSE relation (Theorem 3), a KKT-based solution for the total mutual information objective (Theorem 4), and claim that the maximum mutual information problem has the same SNR-equalizing solution as the Gaussian case, independent of the input distribution (Theorem 5). Numerical experiments compare the proposed allocations with uniform noise allocation and include an AES-128 case study on the SPERO dataset.

Significance. If the results hold as stated, the paper makes a useful contribution to side-channel countermeasure design: it gives closed-form, non-uniform noise allocations with a clear dual-water-filling interpretation, leverages the I-MMSE relation to obtain stationarity conditions for non-Gaussian inputs, and provides explicit convexity conditions. Strengths include the careful KKT derivations in Appendices A-E, the closed-form nature of the Gaussian solutions, and the demonstration that non-uniform allocation can substantially outperform uniform allocation. The main weakness is that the treatment of 'arbitrary input distributions' in Section V silently presumes that all subchannels share the same input distribution; without this assumption, the central maximum-mutual-information claim is not correct. The paper is therefore promising but needs a substantial clarification and, in places, re-statement.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section V-D, Theorem 5 and Appendix F] The proof of Theorem 5 asserts that because each I_i is strictly increasing in SNR, minimizing max_i I_i(ρ_i) is equivalent to minimizing max_i ρ_i. This equivalence is valid only when all subchannels have the same MI-versus-SNR function I(ρ), i.e., the same input distribution (up to power scaling). The manuscript never states this common-distribution assumption; Section V says only that 'the input signals follow an arbitrary distribution.' Under the natural heterogeneous reading, the theorem is false: for m=2 with P_i=1, Z_i=0, N_0=0.1, one Gaussian and one binary subchannel, formula (36) gives N_1=N_2=0.05 and max MI = 0.5 ln(1+20) ≈ 1.522 nats, whereas N_1=0.1, N_2=0 gives max(0.5 ln(1+10), ln 2) ≈ 1.199 nats, a strictly better allocation. Please add the common-input-distribution assumption explicitly and either restrict Theorem 5 to that case or provide the correct heterogeneous generalization.
  2. [Section V, Theorems 3-4] The same implicit common-distribution assumption underlies Theorem 4. The notation mmse(P_i/(N_i+Z_i)) and I(ρ_i) in (31)-(32) presumes that every subchannel has the same MMSE function; if subchannels have different input distributions, the stationarity condition must be P_i/(N_i+Z_i)^2 · mmse_i(P_i/(N_i+Z_i)) = ν, with per-subchannel mmse_i. As written, the theorem's claim for 'arbitrary input distributions' is too strong. Please state in the model that all subchannels share a common normalized input distribution, or derive the per-subchannel version.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Equation (13)] The sentence 'the second follows from the chain rule' is not accurate; the inequality I(X^m;Y^m) ≤ sum_i I(X_i;Y_i) follows from the parallel-channel structure (conditional independence of Y_i given X_i) together with subadditivity of entropy. Please correct the justification.
  2. [Appendix C, Eq. (58)] The displayed second derivative is off by a factor of P; the correct expression is (1/(2(N+Z)^2))(1 - J - ρ dJ/dρ). Since P>0, the sign condition (C2) is unaffected, but the formula should be corrected.
  3. [Figures 2-5] Figures 2 and 3 appear identical, as do Figures 4 and 5; if this is not intentional, the correct panels for the two input-power distributions should be provided.
  4. [Section VI-A] Figures 2-6 report no error bars or number of trials, and the percentage savings are stated as precise numbers despite the random sampling of P_i; please provide a fixed seed, or confidence intervals over multiple trials, so the results are reproducible.
  5. [Section VI-B] In the AES case study, the allocation rules from Theorems 1 and 2 are derived for Gaussian inputs, but the real trace intermediate values are not necessarily Gaussian; a sentence explaining why this approximation is appropriate would strengthen the empirical claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the MI objectives and noise allocations are derived from external KKT and I-MMSE results, and no fitted constant or self-citation is load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to external information-theoretic tools. The total-MI and max-MI objectives (17), (25), and (35) are defined independently as leakage metrics, and the closed-form allocations in Theorems 1, 2, 4, and 5 are obtained from KKT conditions and the I-MMSE identity, both cited to external literature. No parameter is fitted to the target quantity and then renamed a prediction; the numerical section evaluates the derived allocations on the same MI objective and on an independent MIA key-recovery benchmark, so the empirical claims are not forced by construction. The reference list contains no work by the present authors that is invoked to justify the central derivations, so there is no load-bearing self-citation. The skeptical concern about Theorem 5, namely that minimizing max_i I_i(P_i/(N_i+Z_i)) need not be equivalent to minimizing max_i P_i/(N_i+Z_i) unless all subchannels share the same MI-versus-SNR function, is a mathematical validity issue in Appendix F, not a circularity: the conclusion is not contained in the monotonicity premise by construction, and no equation is shown to be identical to its input by definition. No passage in the manuscript asserts a missing reference or circular step that would change this verdict. Accordingly, no circular step is exhibited, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted free parameters appear; P_i, Z_i, N_0, and α are model inputs. The main load-bearing postulates are Gaussian noise, known subchannel statistics, and a common standardized input distribution for the max-MI theorem.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Side-channel output is Y_i = X_i + Z_i + N_i, with Z_i and N_i Gaussian and independent of the secret.
    Section II-A states this model; it underlies the I-MMSE relation and all closed-form results, but real power noise is not exactly Gaussian.
  • domain assumption The defender knows the per-sample input powers P_i and physical noise variances Z_i.
    Section II-A and Section VI use P_i and Z_i as known inputs; in practice these must be estimated from measurements.
  • domain assumption All subchannels share the same standardized input distribution when Theorem 5 is applied, so I_i(ρ) is the same strictly increasing function for every i.
    Section V-D and Appendix F; without this premise, equalizing MI does not imply equalizing SNR and the max-MI optimal allocation can differ.
  • standard math I-MMSE relation from Guo, Shamai, and Verdú.
    Lemma 1 and equation (10) invoke the I-MMSE theorem from [20]; it assumes Gaussian noise and is the key tool for arbitrary inputs.
  • standard math Fano's inequality and the data processing inequality justify MI minimization as a leakage-reduction proxy.
    Section III-A and III-B use these textbook results from [23] to motivate the optimization objective.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mutual Information Minimization for Side-Channel Attack Resistance via Optimal Noise Injection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/US46MAEB

@misc{pith2026250420556,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mutual Information Minimization for Side-Channel Attack Resistance via Optimal Noise Injection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/US46MAEB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20556}
}
read the original abstract

Side-channel attacks (SCAs) pose a serious threat to system security by extracting secret keys through physical leakages such as power consumption, timing variations, and electromagnetic emissions. Among existing countermeasures, artificial noise injection is recognized as one of the most effective techniques. However, its high power consumption poses a major challenge for resource-constrained systems such as Internet of Things (IoT) devices, motivating the development of more efficient protection schemes. In this paper, we model SCAs as a communication channel and aim to suppress information leakage by minimizing the mutual information between the secret information and side-channel observations, subject to a power constraint on the artificial noise. We first consider the Gaussian input case, where the mutual information becomes the channel capacity, which is one way to quantify the information leakage. We then extend the framework to arbitrary input distributions by identifying conditions under which the optimization remains convex and by leveraging the fundamental I-MMSE relationship to derive the optimal noise allocation. Numerical results show that the proposed methods substantially reduce mutual information compared with conventional techniques, demonstrating their effectiveness for security-critical systems operating under tight power constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20556 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of (a) water-filling interpretation for c [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of average (total) mutual information un [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of average (total) mutual information un [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of key recovery success rates under MIA at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the maximum mutual information under t [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Correlation power analysis with a leakage model,

    E. Brier, C. Clavier, and F. Olivier, “Correlation power analysis with a leakage model,” in Proc. Int. W orkshop Cryptograph. Hardw. Embedded Syst. (CHES) , Aug. 2004, pp. 16–29

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Electromagneti c analysis: Con- crete results,

    K. Gandolfi, C. Mourtel, and F. Olivier, “Electromagneti c analysis: Con- crete results,” in Proc. Int. W orkshop Cryptograph. Hardw. Embedded Syst. (CHES) , May 2001, pp. 251–261

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    Optima l energy efficient design of artificial noise to prevent side-channel attacks,

    S. Jin, M. Xu, R. Bettati, and M. Christodorescu, “Optima l energy efficient design of artificial noise to prevent side-channel attacks,” in Proc. IEEE Int. W orkshop Inf. F orensics Security (WIFS) , Dec. 2022, pp. 1–6

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Differential power anal ysis,

    P . Kocher, J. Jaffe, and B. Jun, “Differential power anal ysis,” in Proc. Int. Cryptol. Conf. (CRYPTO) , Aug. 1999, pp. 388–397

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    Timing attacks on implementations of Diffi e-Hellman, RSA, DSS, and other systems,

    P . C. Kocher, “Timing attacks on implementations of Diffi e-Hellman, RSA, DSS, and other systems,” in Proc. Int. Cryptol. Conf. (CRYPTO) , Aug. 1996, pp. 104–113

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    Aco ustic side- channel attacks on additive manufacturing systems,

    M. A. Al Faruque, S. R. Chhetri, A. Canedo, and J. Wan, “Aco ustic side- channel attacks on additive manufacturing systems,” in Proc. IEEE/ACM Int. Conf. Cyber-Phys. Syst. (ICCPS) , Apr. 2016, pp. 1–10

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Power side cha nnel attack analysis and detection,

    N. Gattu, M. N. I. Khan, A. De, and S. Ghosh, “Power side cha nnel attack analysis and detection,” in Proc. IEEE/ACM Int. Conf. Comput.- Aided Design (ICCAD) , Nov. 2020, pp. 1–7

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Mangard, E

    S. Mangard, E. Oswald, and T. Popp, Power Analysis Attacks: Revealing the Secrets of Smart Cards . Springer, 2007

    work page 2007

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Power side-channel attack ana lysis: A review of 20 years of study for the layman,

    M. Randolph and W. Diehl, “Power side-channel attack ana lysis: A review of 20 years of study for the layman,” Cryptography, vol. 4, no. 2, p. 15, May 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Protecting smart cards from passive power a nalysis with detached power supplies,

    A. Shamir, “Protecting smart cards from passive power a nalysis with detached power supplies,” in Proc. Int. W orkshop Cryptograph. Hardw. Embedded Syst. (CHES) , Aug. 2000, pp. 71–77

    2000

  3. [11]

    Masking against side-channel attacks: A for- mal security proof,

    E. Prouff and M. Rivain, “Masking against side-channel attacks: A for- mal security proof,” in Proc. Annu. Int. Conf. Theory Appl. Cryptograph. Techn., May 2013, pp. 142–159

    2013

  4. [12]

    Shuffling against side-channel attacks: A comprehensive s tudy with cautionary note,

    N. V eyrat-Charvillon, M. Medwed, S. Kerckhof, and F.-X . Standaert, “Shuffling against side-channel attacks: A comprehensive s tudy with cautionary note,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Theory Appl. Cryptol. Inf. Security (ASIACRYPT), Dec. 2012, pp. 740–757

    2012

  5. [13]

    ASNI: Attenuated signature noise injection for low-overh ead power side-channel attack immunity,

    D. Das, S. Maity, S. B. Nasir, S. Ghosh, A. Raychowdhury, and S. Sen, “ASNI: Attenuated signature noise injection for low-overh ead power side-channel attack immunity,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I , vol. 65, no. 10, pp. 3300–3311, Oct. 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    PA RAM: A microprocessor hardened for power side-channel attack res istance,

    M. Arsath K F, V . Ganesan, R. Bodduna, and C. Rebeiro, “PA RAM: A microprocessor hardened for power side-channel attack res istance,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Hardware Oriented Secur . (HOST) , Dec. 2020, pp. 23–34

    2020

  7. [15]

    A comprehensive survey on the non-invasive passive side-channel analysis,

    P . Socha, V . Miˇ skovsk` y, and M. Novotn` y, “A comprehensive survey on the non-invasive passive side-channel analysis,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 21, pp. 1–37, Oct. 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Mutu al information analysis: A generic side-channel distinguisher,

    B. Gierlichs, L. Batina, P . Tuyls, and B. Preneel, “Mutu al information analysis: A generic side-channel distinguisher,” in Proc. Int. W orkshop Cryptograph. Hardw. Embedded Syst. (CHES) , Aug. 2008, pp. 426–442

    2008

  9. [17]

    Synthesis of adaptive side-channel attacks,

    Q.-S. Phan, L. Bang, C. S. Pasareanu, P . Malacaria, and T . Bultan, “Synthesis of adaptive side-channel attacks,” in Proc. IEEE Comput. Secur . F ound. Symp. (CSF), Aug. 2017, pp. 328–342

    2017

  10. [18]

    An operational app roach to information leakage,

    I. Issa, A. B. Wagner, and S. Kamath, “An operational app roach to information leakage,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 1625– 1657, May 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    A case for maximal leak age as a side channel leakage metric,

    B. Wu, A. B. Wagner, and G. E. Suh, “A case for maximal leak age as a side channel leakage metric,” arXiv:2004.08035, Apr. 2020

    2004 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Mutual information an d minimum mean-square error in Gaussian channels,

    D. Guo, S. Shamai, and S. V erd´ u, “Mutual information an d minimum mean-square error in Gaussian channels,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 1261–1282, Apr. 2005. 14

    2005

  13. [21]

    Classic McEliece hardware implementation with enhanced side-chan nel and fault resistance,

    P . Gan, P . Ravi, K. Raj, A. Baksi, and A. Chattopadhyay, “ Classic McEliece hardware implementation with enhanced side-chan nel and fault resistance,” Cryptol. ePrint Archive , Nov. 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Generic side-channel count ermeasures for reconfigurable devices,

    T. G¨ uneysu and A. Moradi, “Generic side-channel count ermeasures for reconfigurable devices,” in Proc. Int. W orkshop Cryptograph. Hardw. Embedded Syst. (CHES) , Sep. 2011, pp. 33–48

    2011

  15. [23]

    T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory , 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience, Jul. 2006

    2006

  16. [24]

    Information radius,

    R. Sibson, “Information radius,” Z. W ahrscheinlichkeitstheorie V erw. Geb., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 149–160, Jun. 1969

    1969

  17. [25]

    α-mutual information,

    S. V erd´ u, “α-mutual information,” in Proc. Inf. Theory Appl. W orkshop (ITA), Feb. 2015, pp. 1–6

    2015

  18. [26]

    Optimum power al location for parallel Gaussian channels with arbitrary input distri butions,

    A. Lozano, A. M. Tulino, and S. V erd´ u, “Optimum power al location for parallel Gaussian channels with arbitrary input distri butions,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 52, no. 7, pp. 3033–3051, Jul. 2006

    2006

  19. [27]

    Characterization of exponentially modifi ed Gaussian peaks in chromatography,

    E. Grushka, “Characterization of exponentially modifi ed Gaussian peaks in chromatography,” Anal. Chem. , vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 1733–1738, Sep. 1972

    1972

  20. [28]

    Remote timing attacks are prac tical,

    D. Brumley and D. Boneh, “Remote timing attacks are prac tical,” Computer Networks , vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 701–716, 2005

    2005

  21. [29]

    Estimation in Gaussian noise: properties of the minimum mean-square error,

    D. Guo, Y . Wu, S. S. Shitz, and S. V erd´ u, “Estimation in Gaussian noise: properties of the minimum mean-square error,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 2371–2385, Mar. 2011

    2011

  22. [30]

    SPERO: Simultaneou s power/EM side-channel dataset using real-time and oscilloscope set ups,

    Y . Bai, R. Y . Acharya, and D. Forte, “SPERO: Simultaneou s power/EM side-channel dataset using real-time and oscilloscope set ups,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.06571, May 2024

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A study on evaluation b oard requirements for assessing vulnerability of cryptographi c modules to side-channel attacks,

    K. Iokibe, T. Kan, and Y . Toyota, “A study on evaluation b oard requirements for assessing vulnerability of cryptographi c modules to side-channel attacks,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Electromagn. Compat. Signal/Power Integrity, (EMCSI) , Jul. 2020, pp. 528–531

    2020

  24. [32]

    Tweedie’s formula and selection bias,

    B. Efron, “Tweedie’s formula and selection bias,” J. Am. Stat. Assoc. , vol. 106, no. 496, pp. 1602–1614, Mar. 2011

    2011

  25. [33]

    I. M. Jacobs and J. Wozencraft, Principles of Communication Engineer- ing. New Y ork: Wiley, 1965

    1965

  26. [34]

    T. M. Apostol, Calculus, V olume 1. John Wiley & Sons, 1991

    1991

  27. [35]

    V alues of Mills’ ratio of area to bounding ordinate and of the normal probability integral for large values of the ar gument,

    R. D. Gordon, “V alues of Mills’ ratio of area to bounding ordinate and of the normal probability integral for large values of the ar gument,” Ann. Math. Stat. , vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 364–366, 1941

    1941

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.