MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308381125 · doi:10.1145/3548606.3560559

Selective MPC

2022· article· en· W4308381125 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Humphries, Rasoul Akhavan Mahdavi, Shannon Veitch, Florian Kerschbaum

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Data Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputationKey (lock)ServerNoise (video)Secure multi-party computationProtocol (science)Distributed computingTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceComputer networkComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key-value data is a naturally occurring data type that has not been thoroughly investigated in the local trust model. Existing local differentially private (LDP) solutions for computing statistics over key-value data suffer from the inherent accuracy limitations of each user adding their own noise. Multi-party computation (MPC) maintains better accuracy than LDP and similarly does not require a trusted central party. However, naively applying MPC to key-value data results in prohibitively expensive computation costs. In this work, we present selective multi-party computation, a novel approach to distributed computation that leverages DP leakage to efficiently and accurately compute statistics over key-value data. By providing each party with a view of a random subset of the data, we can capture subtractive noise. We prove that our protocol satisfies pure DP and is provably secure in the combined DP/MPC model. Our empirical evaluation demonstrates that we can compute statistics over 10,000 keys in 20 seconds and can scale up to 30 servers while obtaining results for a single key in under a second.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesOpen science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0080.012
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.228 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications SecuritySame topicCryptography and Data SecurityFrench-language works237,207