MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6948382657 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.16393

Optimal Communication Unbalanced Private Set Union

2024· preprint· en· W6948382657 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsCentre Casa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommunication sourceHomomorphic encryptionSet (abstract data type)ComputationCommunication complexityPolynomialQuadratic equationProtocol (science)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present new two-party protocols for the Unbalanced Private Set Union (UPSU) problem. Here, the Sender holds a set of data points, and the Receiver holds another (possibly much larger) set, and they would like for the Receiver to learn the union of the two sets and nothing else. Furthermore, the Sender's computational cost, along with the communication complexity, should be smaller when the Sender has a smaller set. While the UPSU problem has numerous applications and has seen considerable recent attention in the literature, our protocols are the first where the Sender's computational cost and communication volume are linear in the size of the Sender's set only, and do not depend on the size of the Receiver's set. Our constructions combine linearly homomorphic encryption (LHE) with fully homomorphic encryption (FHE). The first construction uses multi-point polynomial evaluation (MEv) on FHE, and achieves optimal linear cost for the Sender, but has higher quadratic computational cost for the Receiver. In the second construction we explore another trade-off: the Receiver computes fast polynomial Euclidean remainder in FHE while the Sender computes a fast MEv, in LHE only. This reduces the Receiver's cost to quasi-linear, with a modest increase in the computational cost for the Sender. Preliminary experimental results using HElib indicate that, for example, a Sender holding 1000 elements can complete our first protocol using less than 2s of computation time and less than 10MB of communication volume, independently of the Receiver's set size.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.011
Open science0.0030.012
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.172
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.099 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207