Channels of Small Log-Ratio Leakage and Characterization of Two-Party Differentially Private Computation

Abstract

Consider a PPT two-party protocol π=(A,B) in which the parties get no private inputs and obtain outputs OA,OB∈ \0,1\, and let VA and VB denote the parties' individual views. Protocol π has α-agreement if Pr[OA=OB]=1/2+α. The leakage of π is the amount of information a party obtains about the event \OA=OB\; that is, the leakage ε is the maximum, over P∈\A,B\, of the distance between VP|OA=OB and VP|OA≠ OB. Typically, this distance is measured in statistical distance, or, in the computational setting, in computational indistinguishability. For this choice, Wullschleger [TCC 09] showed that if α>>ε then the protocol can be transformed into an OT protocol. We consider measuring the protocol leakage by the log-ratio distance (which was popularized by its use in the differential privacy framework). The log-ratio distance between X,Y over domain is the minimal ε>0 for which, for every v∈, log(Pr[X=v]/Pr[Y=v])∈ [-ε,ε]. In the computational setting, we use computational indistinguishability from having log-ratio distance ε. We show that a protocol with (noticeable) accuracy α∈(ε2) can be transformed into an OT protocol (note that this allows ε>>α). We complete the picture, in this respect, showing that a protocol with α∈ o(ε2) does not necessarily imply OT. Our results hold for both the information theoretic and the computational settings, and can be viewed as a "fine grained" approach to "weak OT amplification". We then use the above result to fully characterize the complexity of differentially private two-party computation for the XOR function, answering the open question put by Goyal, Khurana, Mironov, Pandey, and Sahai [ICALP 16] and Haitner, Nissim, Omri, Shaltiel, and Silbak [FOCS 18].

0

Turn this paper into a lesson

ArcXiv compiles a structured reading guide from this paper's metadata: plain-English importance, contributions, prerequisite concepts, which sections to read first, flashcards, and a quiz. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…