On $q$-nearly bent Boolean functions
Zhixiong Chen, Andrew Klapper

TL;DR
This paper introduces the concept of $q$-nearly bent Boolean functions, proving their existence for certain classes and providing conditions to identify non-$q$-nearly bent functions, advancing understanding of Boolean function transformations.
Contribution
It establishes the existence of $q$-nearly bent functions for non-affine $q$ with weight one, answering an open question and providing criteria for non-$q$-nearly bent functions.
Findings
Balanced Boolean functions are $q$-nearly bent if $q$ has weight one.
Proved existence of non-affine $q$-nearly bent functions.
Provided a necessary condition to determine when a function isn't $q$-nearly bent.
Abstract
For each non-constant Boolean function , Klapper introduced the notion of -transforms of Boolean functions. The {\em -transform} of a Boolean function is related to the Hamming distances from to the functions obtainable from by nonsingular linear change of basis. In this work we discuss the existence of -nearly bent functions, a new family of Boolean functions characterized by the -transform. Let be a non-affine Boolean function. We prove that any balanced Boolean functions (linear or non-linear) are -nearly bent if has weight one, which gives a positive answer to an open question (whether there exist non-affine -nearly bent functions) proposed by Klapper. We also prove a necessary condition for checking when a function isn't -nearly bent.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsCoding theory and cryptography · graph theory and CDMA systems · Finite Group Theory Research
On -nearly bent Boolean functions
Zhixiong Chen1 and Andrew Klapper2
- Provincial Key Laboratory of Applied Mathematics,
Putian University, Putian, Fujian 351100, P. R. China
- Department of Computer Science, University of Kentucky,
Lexington, KY 40506-0633, USA.
Abstract
For each non-constant Boolean function , Klapper introduced the notion of -transforms of Boolean functions. The -transform of a Boolean function is related to the Hamming distances from to the functions obtainable from by nonsingular linear change of basis.
In this work we discuss the existence of -nearly bent functions, a new family of Boolean functions characterized by the -transform. Let be a non-affine Boolean function. We prove that any balanced Boolean functions (linear or non-linear) are -nearly bent if has weight one, which gives a positive answer to an open question (whether there exist non-affine -nearly bent functions) proposed by Klapper. We also prove a necessary condition for checking when a function isn’t -nearly bent.
Keywords. Boolean function, Walsh-Hadamard transform, -transform, bent function, plateaued functions, -nearly bent function
1 Introduction
Boolean functions play a central role in cryptography. For example, they appear as feedback functions in the state changes of nonlinear feedback shift registers, as combining functions for nonlinear combiners [8], and as components in S-boxes in block ciphers.
Linear or affine functions are cryptographically vulnerable and in general should not be used. A critical tool in the analysis of symmetric key cryptosystems is the Walsh-Hadamard transform [1, 3, 10]. It has been used, for example, to measure how closely a given Boolean function can be approximated by an affine function. For security of cryptographic schemes, we generally need to use functions that are ‘far’ from affine functions, or even from simple functions (e.g., of low degree, depending on few variables, or of low rank). This reasoning has led to a new transform (see Definition 1) that is related to the Hamming distance from a fixed (not necessarily affine) function [6]. We (partially with other coauthors) have explored some issues concerning the q-transform [2, 4, 6, 7].
The topic of this work is related to the concept of bent functions, which we will review. It is well known that for even dimension , every bent function achieves the upper bound on the distance from the set of affine functions. We introduce below some basic knowledge on Boolean functions.
Let be a positive integer, let , treated as row vectors, and let , the set of Boolean functions of dimension . We denote by . We refer the reader to Carlet’s book chapter [1] and Cusick and Stănică’s monograph [3] for background on Boolean functions.
For , let be the Hamming weight of . It is the cardinality of the support of .
For , let
[TABLE]
Also let be the Hamming distance from to . Then
[TABLE]
which means, in particular, that is an even number.
Let be linear, where . The Walsh-Hadamard transform coefficient of at is . We recall that Parseval’s identity says that
[TABLE]
A function with for all is called a bent function. For bent functions on bits to exist it is necessary that be even. It is well known that bent functions exist for all even . For example, rank quadratic functions are bent.
In recent years, Klapper generalized the Walsh-Hadamard transform to a new transform called the -transform, which is associated with a fixed non-constant function [6]. Let be the group of invertible matrices over . Let . Let denote the function for and . Let denote the zero matrix.
Definition 1**.**
Let . If and , then the -transform coefficient of at is . Also let
[TABLE]
where is referred to as the imbalance of .
We note that is even for all and if and only if is balanced.
Klapper considered the statistical behavior of the -transform with respect to two probability distributions [6]. For a random variable on , let denote the expected value of with respect to the uniform distribution on . Let denote the expected value of on with respect to , the probability distribution on defined by
[TABLE]
for and
[TABLE]
where . Then, for balanced , by some computations involving that we shall omit [6, p. 2801], we get
[TABLE]
and so
[TABLE]
This is a generalization of Parseval’s equation. Equation (2) leads to the notion of -bent functions.
Definition 2**.**
([6]) Let be balanced. A function is -bent if for all .
As with bent functions, -bent functions do not exist if is odd. If is linear and non-zero, then is -bent if and only if it is bent. However, for balanced non-affine , we have proved the following.
Theorem 1**.**
([2]) Let be even. No -bent functions exist for balanced non-affine .
Theorem 1 gave a positive answer to a conjecture in Klapper’s paper [6, Conj. 3, p. 2802]. So we consider generalizations of -bent functions. Equation (1) leads to the notion of -nearly bent functions [6], where is not considered. Due to the fact that balanced Boolean functions are especially important in cryptography, we consider the partial expected value and second moment of the -transform of such a function. From [6, Thms.1(1) and 4], the -nearly bent functions are introduced in the following definition.
Definition 3**.**
([6, Def.3]) Let . A balanced function is * -nearly bent if*
[TABLE]
for all , where as before.
Note that Definition 3 is valid for odd as well as even. It follows that if is a quadratic function with rank , then any non-zero linear function is -nearly bent. Klapper left an open question as to whether there exist non-linear (balanced) so that is -nearly bent for a given non-linear [6, p. 2803].
In this work, our main contribution is to prove that there do exist non-linear (balanced) -nearly bent. We organize the work as follows. In Section 2 we present some necessary conditions for -nearly bent functions. In Section 3 we give a family of -nearly bent functions. In Section 4 we prove some partial results of impossibility of being -nearly bent.
Throughout this work, let
[TABLE]
Since for any , we see that a balanced is -nearly bent if is -nearly bent. Thus hereafter we assume that .
2 Necessary conditions for -nearly bent functions
In the section we show certain properties of the parameter for any -nearly bent functions. We first give two lemmas.
Lemma 1**.**
Let be any integer (odd or even) and . For any balanced , if , we have for all
[TABLE]
if is even, and otherwise
[TABLE]
Proof. Since and for all , we derive
[TABLE]
The lemma follows from the fact that , which was shown in our earlier paper [7]. ∎
Lemma 2**.**
For any , we have
[TABLE]
Proof. These bounds can be proven using the the following
[TABLE]
∎
Now we study the parameter .
Theorem 2**.**
Let be any integer (odd or even) and . If is (balanced) -nearly bent, then there exists a matrix such that .
Proof. Suppose for all . This implies that for all , and hence that . However, from Equation (1)111Indeed here we use by Thm. 1(1) in [6]. and Lemma 2, we see that , a contradiction. ∎
Theorem 3**.**
Let be any integer (odd or even) and . If there exists a (balanced) -nearly bent function in , then, either when is even or when is odd.
Proof. Suppose that is -nearly bent. Then there exists a matrix such that by Theorem 2. The statements can be proved by Lemma 1. ∎
Theorem 3 can be used to check whether there exist -nearly bent functions for certain . We prove the non-existence of -nearly bent functions for certain in Section 4. But in the coming section, we present a family of -nearly bent functions.
3 Existence of -nearly bent functions
Since linear functions are -nearly bent for any bent function , Klapper asked whether there exist non-linear and non-linear balanced so that is -nearly bent [6, p. 2803]. Theorem 4 below answers this question.
Theorem 4**.**
Let be any integer (odd or even) and . If , then any balanced (linear or non-linear) is -nearly bent.
Proof. By Lemma 1 we see that for all . Now using the fact that , we can prove
[TABLE]
So by Definition 3, is -nearly bent. ∎
It is natural to consider the cases of other values of . In the following section, we find different phenomena.
4 Impossibility of being -nearly bent
In this section we derive conditions under which no -nearly bent functions can exist. These conditions are expressed in terms of and . They apply when the weight of is low.
Theorem 5**.**
Let be an integer (odd or even) and . If , then there are no non-linear -nearly bent functions.
Proof. Using , we compute
[TABLE]
Then the proof is finished using Theorem 3. ∎
Table 1 below lists some experimental results. Some of these results can be checked using Theorem 3, but others cannot.
We see that for , Theorem 3 is of no use to us. So we need further analysis.
Theorem 6**.**
Let be any integer (odd or even) and . If , then no non-linear -nearly bent function exists.
Proof. We first prove the case when . Let have . In this case is balanced. We only need to deal with the balanced functions with value [math] at . There are only balanced functions (with value [math] at ), which include 7 of degree 1 and 28 of degree 2. Note that there are no balanced functions of degree 3 222There are no balanced functions with degree in ..
On the other hand, the number of invertible matrices over is . Consider the balanced function . There are exactly six ’s such that . They are
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
These six matrices form ’s stabilizer subgroup under the action of on . Hence for all , there are distinct ’s. This implies that all balanced functions of degree 2 are of the form for some .
Thus for any balanced of degree 2, we have for some . Hence . That is, no non-linear -nearly bent function exists for balanced of degree 2.
Now we turn to the case when . Since we may assume that and select for such that , and for . We will show that for any non-linear balanced there exists an such that . This implies that and hence isn’t -nearly bent. If for all or for all , we get immediately that , where is the identity matrix. Otherwise, we give a proof in two cases. We assume below that is non-linear and balanced, and that .
Suppose are linearly independent. The support of has cardinality and is not contained in a proper subspace of (otherwise the support would equal the subspace, which would imply that is affine). We select four row vectors that are linearly independent. Hence there exists an such that for . Then for we have
[TABLE]
So we get
[TABLE]
Now suppose are linearly dependent. Without loss of generality, we suppose that are linearly independent and is of the form or .
First, if , then there are vectors of the form with . We can select four pairwise distinct vectors such that . Hence there exists an such that for , from which we get and
[TABLE]
for . So we get .
Second, we suppose . If there exist pairwise distinct such that , then are linearly independent. We write . If , and then we can construct such that for and calculate . If , that is, if any vector for distinct , then we choose pairwise distinct and set
[TABLE]
Then . We further select such that . Hence we can construct such that for , from which we get and
[TABLE]
for . So we get . This completes the proof. ∎
We hope that the method used in Theorem 6 can be useful for checking with other . For example, if and all vectors in are linearly independent, then any non-linear balanced function isn’t -nearly bent. However, if the vectors in are linearly dependent, the proof seems to be more complicated.
We remark that the considered above is small, so we prove a result for large .
Theorem 7**.**
Let be even and . If
[TABLE]
then no non-linear -nearly bent function exists.
Proof. Suppose that non-linear, balanced is -nearly bent. We have , and . Thus . We have
[TABLE]
Note that . Thus for we have
[TABLE]
and hence (an odd number), which is impossible by Theorem 3.
Now for and we have by Definition 3
[TABLE]
Then we see that for all and . Equation (2) implies that for all and hence is -bent, which contradicts Theorem 1. This completes the proof. ∎
We have immediately the following corollary, which says Proposition 5 in [6] is vacuous for even .
Corollary 1**.**
Let be even and . If is balanced (so ), then no non-linear (balanced) -nearly bent function exists.
Unfortunately, we cannot prove a similar result based on Theorem 7 for odd . For , the first part of the proof of Theorem 6 says that any non-linear balanced of degree 2 is not -nearly bent for non-linear balanced . For odd , we haven’t any results, although sometimes it can be checked by Theorem 3. We list blow some experimental data. We cannot prove the cases when or .
[TABLE]
Table 2. Examples of with
For , we see that and check that there are no -nearly bent functions when by Theorem 6 and when by Theorem 3 (by checking ). We do not know whether -nearly bent functions exist if , in which case .
The results and examples seem to indicate that there are no non-linear -nearly bent functions when , so we make this a conjecture.
Conjecture 1**.**
Let be any integer (odd or even) and . If , then no non-linear (balanced) -nearly bent function exists.
5 Conclusions
In this work, we have studied the existence and non-existence of -nearly bent functions with respect to -transform for a non-affine Boolean function . We have shown that all balanced functions are -nearly bent if has weight one, which confirms the existence of -nearly bent functions. We have also pointed out a necessary condition for -nearly bent functions to exist. That is, if a -nearly bent function exists then either when is even or when is odd. The statement can be used to determine the non-existence of -nearly bent functions. Results and examples lead us to the conjecture that there are no non-linear -nearly bent functions when .
To weaken the notion of q-bentness, it is natural to generalize plateaued functions [5, 9], we would say is -plateaued if all its -transform coefficients are in for some positive integer . When and , we can check that any with is -plateaued. In this case, . Then we ask, for and a given non-affine , do there exist non-affine -plateaued functions?
Acknowledgments
Z. Chen was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant No. 61772292, by the Provincial Natural Science Foundation of Fujian under grant No. 2018J01425 and by the Program for Innovative Research Team in Science and Technology in Fujian Province University under grant No. 2018-49.
A. Klapper was partially supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. CNS-1420227. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] C. Carlet. Boolean functions for cryptography and error correcting codes, in Y. Crama, P. Hammer (eds.), Boolean Methods and Models, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2010, pp. 257-397. Available at: http://www.math.univ-paris 13.fr/~carlet/pubs.html.
- 2[2] Z. Chen, T. Gu and A. Klapper. On q 𝑞 q -bentness of Boolean functions. Designs, Codes and Cryptography, 2019, 87(1): 163-171.
- 3[3] T. Cusick and P. Stănică. Cryptographic Boolean Functions and Applications, Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2009.
- 4[4] T. Gu, Z. Chen and A. Klapper. Correlation immune functions with respect to the q 𝑞 q -transform. Cryptography and Communications, 2018, 10(6): 1063-1073.
- 5[5] J. Y. Hyun, H. Lee and Y. Lee. Nonexistence of certain types of plateaued functions. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 2013, 161: 2745-2748.
- 6[6] A. Klapper. A new Transform related to distance from a Boolean function. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 2016, 62(5): 2798-2812.
- 7[7] A. Klapper and Z. Chen. On the nonexistence of q 𝑞 q -bent Boolean functions. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 2018, 64(4): 2953-2961.
- 8[8] W. Meier and O. Staffelbach. Correlation properties of combiners with memory in stream ciphers. Journal of Cryptology, 1992, 5: 67-86.
