pith. sign in

arxiv: 2602.02489 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-02 · 💻 cs.IT · cs.CR· math.IT

Secure Multi-User Linearly-Separable Distributed Computing

Amir Masoud Jafarpisheh , Ali Khalesi , Petros Elia This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 08:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.IT cs.CRmath.IT
keywords distributed computinginformation-theoretic secrecymatrix factorizationmulti-user systemssparse matricescommon randomnesslinear separability
0
0 comments X

The pith

A necessary and sufficient rank condition on the decoding matrix D ensures perfect information-theoretic secrecy in multi-user linearly-separable distributed computing while preserving costs.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper converts multi-user computing requests into a sparse matrix factorization F equals D E, then adds secrecy so each user learns only its own function. It derives that for any user observing alpha_k server responses the visible common randomness must span dimension greater than alpha_k minus one, and that removing the corresponding columns from D must leave a submatrix of rank at least K minus one. This condition is shown to be necessary and sufficient, and it supports a transformation that appends a basis for the null space of D to E and injects shared randomness. A sympathetic reader cares because the method keeps the original communication and computation loads unchanged while guaranteeing secrecy over finite fields and arbitrarily small leakage over reals.

Core claim

The central claim is that secrecy holds if and only if, for every user, the submatrix of D obtained by deleting the columns tied to servers that user observes has rank at least K minus one. The authors construct an explicit scheme that meets this condition by extending E with a null-space basis of D and injecting shared randomness into the new coordinates; the resulting scheme preserves the sparsity pattern and the original costs, achieves zero leakage over finite fields, and yields a mutual-information upper bound over the reals that vanishes as the variance of the Gaussian randomness grows.

What carries the argument

The null-space basis of D appended to E together with injected shared randomness, which masks all but the desired function values while leaving the sparsity and cost profile of the original factorization intact.

If this is right

  • The original near-optimal computation and communication costs are retained exactly.
  • Perfect information-theoretic secrecy is achieved over any finite field.
  • Over the reals the information leakage is bounded by a term that decreases with the variance of the Gaussian common randomness.
  • The same transformation applies uniformly to any valid factorization that already satisfies the rank condition.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The rank condition may limit how many users can be supported for a given server set once secrecy is required.
  • Efficient distributed generation of the required shared randomness would be needed before the zero-cost claim holds in practice.
  • Similar null-space injections could be tested in other linear coding problems outside distributed computing.

Load-bearing premise

Shared randomness can be generated and distributed at zero extra communication cost, and appending the null-space basis leaves the sparsity and cost properties of the factorization unchanged.

What would settle it

An explicit matrix D and assignment of observed servers for which the reduced submatrix has rank less than K minus one, yet the mutual information between a user's observations and the other users' functions can still be driven to zero.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.02489 by Ali Khalesi, Amir Masoud Jafarpisheh, Petros Elia.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: System model of secure multi-user linearly-separable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The introduction of the new multi-user linearly-separable distributed computing framework, has recently revealed how a parallel treatment of users can yield large parallelization gains with relatively low computation and communication costs. These gains stem from a new approach that converts the computing problem into a sparse matrix factorization problem; a matrix \(\mathbf{F}\) that describes the users' requests, is decomposed as \(\mathbf{F} = \mathbf{DE}\), where a \(\gamma\)-sparse \(\mathbf{E}\) defines the task allocation across \(N\) servers, and a \(\delta\)-sparse \(\mathbf{D}\) defines the connectivity between \(N\) servers and \(K\) users as well as the decoding process. While this approach provides near-optimal performance, its linear nature has raised data secrecy concerns. We adopt an information-theoretic secrecy framework requiring that each user learns nothing more than its own requested function. Our main results provide (i) a necessary condition stating that for each user $k$ observing \(\alpha_k\) server responses, the common randomness visible to that user must span a subspace of dimension greater than \(\alpha_k-1\), and (ii) a necessary and sufficient condition requiring that removing from \(\mathbf{D}\) the columns corresponding to the servers observed by a user leaves a matrix of rank at least \(K-1\). Based on these conditions, we design a general, cost-preserving secrecy-enforcing transformation valid over both finite and real fields, obtained by appending to \(\mathbf{E}\) a basis of \(\mathrm{Null}(\mathbf{D})\) and carefully injecting shared randomness. This scheme preserves communication and computation costs, guarantees perfect information-theoretic secrecy over finite fields, and in the real case yields an explicit mutual-information bound that can be made arbitrarily small by increasing the variance of Gaussian common randomness.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a secure multi-user linearly-separable distributed computing framework. It derives a necessary condition on the dimension of common randomness visible to each user (greater than alpha_k - 1) and a necessary-and-sufficient rank condition on D after removing columns for servers observed by a user (rank at least K-1). Based on these, it provides a construction that appends a basis of Null(D) to E and injects shared randomness to achieve information-theoretic secrecy (perfect over finite fields, with explicit mutual-information bound over reals), claiming the transformation preserves the original gamma-sparsity, computation, and communication costs.

Significance. If the construction preserves sparsity and costs while delivering the stated secrecy guarantees, the result would be significant: it would extend the parallelization gains of linearly-separable distributed computing to the secure setting without overhead, providing both necessary/sufficient conditions and an explicit scheme valid over finite and real fields. The explicit mutual-information bound that can be driven to zero is a concrete strength.

major comments (1)
  1. [Construction] Construction (following the rank condition): the claim that appending a basis of Null(D) to E preserves the gamma-sparsity of E (and thus the original computation/communication loads) is not supported by the rank condition alone. The condition ensures dim(Null(D)) is sufficient, but does not guarantee existence of a basis whose vectors are at most gamma-sparse. If every vector in Null(D) has more than gamma non-zeros, the new E becomes denser, increasing per-server tasks and violating cost preservation. This is load-bearing for the central claim and requires either a proof that a sparse basis can always be chosen or a modified construction.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the two conditions are described in prose; adding equation or theorem numbers for the necessary condition on randomness dimension and the rank condition would improve clarity.
  2. [Construction] Notation: the distinction between the original E and the appended E' (after null-space basis) should be made explicit in the construction description to avoid confusion when discussing sparsity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review. The major comment raises a valid point about rigorously establishing sparsity preservation in the proposed construction. We address it directly below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Construction] Construction (following the rank condition): the claim that appending a basis of Null(D) to E preserves the gamma-sparsity of E (and thus the original computation/communication loads) is not supported by the rank condition alone. The condition ensures dim(Null(D)) is sufficient, but does not guarantee existence of a basis whose vectors are at most gamma-sparse. If every vector in Null(D) has more than gamma non-zeros, the new E becomes denser, increasing per-server tasks and violating cost preservation. This is load-bearing for the central claim and requires either a proof that a sparse basis can always be chosen or a modified construction.

    Authors: We agree that the rank condition alone does not automatically guarantee a gamma-sparse basis for Null(D), and the original manuscript does not contain an explicit proof of this fact. In the revised version we will add a new lemma establishing that, under the necessary-and-sufficient rank condition on D together with the gamma-sparsity of the original E and the linear-separability structure of the problem, there always exists a basis of Null(D) whose vectors are at most gamma-sparse. The proof is constructive and exploits the column dependencies induced by the user-connectivity pattern; it will be placed immediately after the statement of the rank condition. Should the lemma require additional assumptions not present in the current framework, we will instead modify the augmentation step to select only the sparsest vectors in Null(D) that still satisfy the secrecy dimension requirement, thereby preserving the claimed costs. This change will make the cost-preservation argument fully rigorous while leaving all other results unchanged. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: conditions derived from standard rank and secrecy arguments

full rationale

The paper's necessary and sufficient condition on the rank of submatrices of D follows directly from the information-theoretic secrecy definition requiring that each user obtains no information beyond its own requested function. The construction appends a basis for Null(D) to E and injects shared randomness; while the claim that this preserves gamma-sparsity is asserted without an explicit existence proof for a sparse basis under the rank condition, this is an independent assumption rather than a self-referential reduction. No equation equates a derived quantity to its input by construction, no parameter is fitted to data and then relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing step collapses to a self-citation. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external linear-algebra and secrecy benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on the standard information-theoretic secrecy model and the matrix-factorization representation introduced in prior work on linearly-separable computing.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Each user must learn nothing more than its own requested function (information-theoretic secrecy).
    Adopted as the security requirement in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5631 in / 1164 out tokens · 26481 ms · 2026-05-16T08:17:07.731624+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Multi-user linearly-separable distributed com- puting,

    A. Khalesi and P. Elia, “Multi-user linearly-separable distributed com- puting,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 69, no. 10, pp. 6314–6339, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    A fundamental tradeoff between computation and communication in distributed com- puting,

    S. Li, M. A. Maddah-Ali, Q. Yu, and A. S. Avestimehr, “A fundamental tradeoff between computation and communication in distributed com- puting,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 109–128, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Storage-computation-communication tradeoff in distributed computing: Fundamental limits and complexity,

    Q. Yan, S. Yang, and M. Wigger, “Storage-computation-communication tradeoff in distributed computing: Fundamental limits and complexity,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 68, no. 8, pp. 5496– 5512, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Tessellated distributed computing,

    A. Khalesi and P. Elia, “Tessellated distributed computing,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 71, no. 6, pp. 4754–4784, 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Multi-server multi-function distributed computation,

    D. Malak, M. R. Deylam Salehi, B. Serbetci, and P. Elia, “Multi-server multi-function distributed computation,”Entropy, vol. 26, no. 6, p. 448, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Gradient coding: Avoiding stragglers in distributed learning,

    R. Tandon, Q. Lei, A. G. Dimakis, and N. Karampatziakis, “Gradient coding: Avoiding stragglers in distributed learning,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2017, pp. 3368–3376

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Communication-computation efficient gradient coding,

    M. Ye and E. Abbe, “Communication-computation efficient gradient coding,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2018, pp. 5610–5619

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Straggler mitigation in distributed matrix multiplication: Fundamental limits and optimal coding,

    Q. Yu, M. A. Maddah-Ali, and A. S. Avestimehr, “Straggler mitigation in distributed matrix multiplication: Fundamental limits and optimal coding,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 1920–1933, 2020

    work page 1920

  9. [9]

    Optimal communication-computation trade-off in hierarchical gradient coding,

    A. Gholami, T. Jahani-Nezhad, K. Wan, and G. Caire, “Optimal communication-computation trade-off in hierarchical gradient coding,” in2025 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), 2025, pp. 1–6

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Multi-access distributed computing,

    F. Brunero and P. Elia, “Multi-access distributed computing,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 3385–3398, 2024

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Distributed linearly separable computation,

    K. Wan, H. Sun, M. Ji, and G. Caire, “Distributed linearly separable computation,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 1259–1278, 2021

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    On the tradeoff between computation and communication costs for distributed linearly separable computation,

    ——, “On the tradeoff between computation and communication costs for distributed linearly separable computation,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 69, no. 11, pp. 7390–7405, 2021

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Fundamental limits of distributed computing for linearly separable functions,

    K. Namboodiri, E. Peter, D. Malak, and P. Elia, “Fundamental limits of distributed computing for linearly separable functions,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.23447, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Fundamental limits of multi-user distributed computing of lin- early separable functions,

    ——, “Fundamental limits of multi-user distributed computing of lin- early separable functions,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.10603, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    Perfect multi-user distributed computing,

    A. Khalesi and P. Elia, “Perfect multi-user distributed computing,” in 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), 2024, pp. 1349–1354

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Multi-user distributed computing via compressed sensing,

    A. Khalesi, S. Daei, M. Kountouris, and P. Elia, “Multi-user distributed computing via compressed sensing,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.03448, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    The capacity of private computation,

    H. Sun and S. A. Jafar, “The capacity of private computation,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 65, no. 6, pp. 3880–3897, 2018

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    Private function retrieval,

    M. Mirmohseni and M. A. Maddah-Ali, “Private function retrieval,” in2018 Iran Workshop on Communication and Information Theory (IWCIT). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–6

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    Fundamental limits of multi-message private computation,

    A. Gholami, K. Wan, T. Jahani-Nezhad, H. Sun, M. Ji, and G. Caire, “Fundamental limits of multi-message private computation,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 73, no. 9, pp. 7462–7477, 2025

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    Lagrange coded computing: Optimal design for resiliency, security, and privacy,

    Q. Yu, S. Li, N. Raviv, S. M. M. Kalan, M. Soltanolkotabi, and S. A. Avestimehr, “Lagrange coded computing: Optimal design for resiliency, security, and privacy,” inThe 22nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. PMLR, 2019, pp. 1215–1225

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    Distributed attribute-based private access control,

    A. M. Jafarpisheh, M. Mirmohseni, and M. A. Maddah-Ali, “Distributed attribute-based private access control,” in2022 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT). IEEE, 2022, pp. 2856–2861

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Hetdapac: Distributed attribute-based private ac- cess control with heterogeneous attributes,

    S. Meel and S. Ulukus, “Hetdapac: Distributed attribute-based private ac- cess control with heterogeneous attributes,” in2024 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT). IEEE, 2024, pp. 3267–3272

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    How to share a secret,

    A. Shamir, “How to share a secret,”Communications of the ACM, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 612–613, 1979

    work page 1979

  24. [24]

    Minimizing latency for secure coded computing using secret sharing via staircase codes,

    R. Bitar, P. Parag, and S. El Rouayheb, “Minimizing latency for secure coded computing using secret sharing via staircase codes,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 68, no. 8, pp. 4609–4619, 2020

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    Privacy in distributed computations based on real number secret sharing,

    K. Tjell and R. Wisniewski, “Privacy in distributed computations based on real number secret sharing,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.00911, 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    The capacity re- gion of distributed multi-user secret sharing,

    A. Khalesi, M. Mirmohseni, and M. A. Maddah-Ali, “The capacity re- gion of distributed multi-user secret sharing,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1057–1071, 2021

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    On secure distributed linearly separable computation,

    K. Wan, H. Sun, M. Ji, and G. Caire, “On secure distributed linearly separable computation,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communi- cations, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 912–926, 2022

    work page 2022