MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2408443837 · doi:10.1515/popets-2016-0006

Efficient Server-Aided 2PC for Mobile Phones

2015· article· en· W2408443837 on OpenAlexaff
Payman Mohassel, Ostap Orobets, Ben Riva

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Data Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProtocol (science)Secure two-party computationAndroid (operating system)Computer securityOblivious transferServerMobile deviceSecure multi-party computationCryptographyComputer networkOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Secure Two-Party Computation (2PC) protocols allow two parties to compute a function of their private inputs without revealing any information besides the output of the computation. There exist low cost general-purpose protocols for semi-honest parties that can be efficiently executed even on smartphones. However, for the case of malicious parties, current 2PC protocols are significantly less efficient, limiting their use to more resourceful devices. In this work we present an efficient 2PC protocol that is secure against malicious parties and is light enough to be used on mobile phones. The protocol is an adaptation of the protocol of Nielsen et al. (Crypto, 2012) to the Server-Aided setting, a natural relaxation of the plain model for secure computation that allows the parties to interact with a server (e.g., a cloud) who is assumed not to collude with any of the parties. Our protocol has two stages: In an offline stage - where no party knows which function is to be computed, nor who else is participating - each party interacts with the server and downloads a file. Later, in the online stage, when two parties decide to execute a 2PC together, they can use the files they have downloaded earlier to execute the computation with cost that is lower than the currently best semi-honest 2PC protocols. We show an implementation of our protocol for Android mobile phones, discuss several optimizations and report on its evaluation for various circuits. For example, the online stage for evaluating a single AES circuit requires only 2.5 seconds and can be further reduced to 1 second (amortized time) with multiple executions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings on Privacy Enhancing TechnologiesSame topicCryptography and Data SecurityFrench-language works237,207