PEPSI: Practically Efficient Private Set Intersection in the Unbalanced Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two parties with private data sets can find shared elements using a Private Set Intersection (PSI) protocol without revealing any information beyond the intersection. Circuit PSI protocols privately compute an arbitrary function of the intersection - such as its cardinality, and are often employed in an unbalanced setting where one party has more data than the other. Existing protocols are either computationally inefficient or require extensive server-client communication on the order of the larger set. We introduce Practically Efficient PSI or PEPSI, a non-interactive solution where only the client sends its encrypted data. PEPSI can process an intersection of 1024 client items with a million server items in under a second, using less than 5 MB of communication. Our work is over 4 orders of magnitude faster than an existing non-interactive circuit PSI protocol and requires only 10% of the communication. It is also up to 20 times faster than the work of Ion et al., which computes a limited set of functions and has communication costs proportional to the larger set. Our work is the first to demonstrate that non-interactive circuit PSI can be practically applied in an unbalanced setting.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".