 Yes, if you are an author of a paper that you're submitting to an IACR event, you need to know what your keyword should be. And being the archivist, I thought I would try to do some sort of word analysis and see how it might help the IACR, it might help understand something about the events. So for example, crypto 2016, use these words. The size of the font is proportional to the importance of the word. So it's really not very surprising that security and key and function and scheme and input and output are there in the small print. You'll find Alice and Bob and several other people. So I thought, is this going to vary over time? Is it going to vary over events? What do words tell us? So let's take a different event, Eurocrypt. Eurocrypt uses by same words in about the same proportion, just no surprise since crypto and Eurocrypt are kind of twins. Random is important. So let's go on to Asiacrypt. I thought Asiacrypt had a slightly different genetic bent to it, but it doesn't really. It uses the same words. So it's as though there really is one vocabulary for cryptography. It was established long ago and really the same words get used over and over in about the same proportions, at least in these three major events. I had expected to find variation over time, which was what I found when I did this analysis for the security and privacy conference. But no, maybe the topics do change and maybe you'll find down in the smallest words oblivious and things creep in. But the big words remain the big words. PKC uses the same words, but it has a narrower range of importance. So it just loves scheme and loves signature too. That's not very surprising. Chess. We begin to see something different here. Chess likes the same words as the others, but Chess is about attack. So attack implementation algorithm is very important here. FSE, the same thing. So FSE and Chess seem to be a cluster. They're cousins to the other four events. TCC, I thought I would see some differences there. There really is a difference in balance on important words, but still it's kind of the same things. And again, not varying much over time. So one way to visualize this is I took all the words that are important for crypto and put them in dark blue. And then words that are distinguishers for other conferences are in different colors. So you can see that Chess likes implementation. And there are some other clusters. It's not that popular in crypto, but it is favored by other conferences. Parameter and element are sort of distinguishers. Another way to look at this is what I call word chromosomes. So in this bar graph, we have the most important words in the conferences. And the color, the size of the color of the bar indicates how important the word is. And this does clarify FSE and Chess, which are at the top in the dark red and orange. They really do use different words. But TCC comes in there and distinguishes itself in a couple of ways. So if you are writing an IACR paper, you must use the word key prominently. Otherwise they might say, maybe you should submit this to a different conference. If you are writing a Chess or FSE paper, you will have to say attack, bit, implementation. Otherwise they might say submit this somewhere else. And if you want to distinguish yourself from crypto because you didn't want it to be a crypto paper, then put in polynomial or round. Round is also an odd word. So what can we do with this scientific information here? The IACR, I believe, has really an unfortunate acronym. I don't think it's very interesting. So we ought to be able to use this analysis to get a better acronym for the IACR, something that's keyword-based and has a meaningful presentation. So input is one of our most important words. So let's start with an I just the way it does now. Key, key is a keyword. It is the most important keyword. Encryption, very important. Let's finish off with algorithm. And we have the perfect name for the IACR, Ikea.