Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 79 references

Federated One-Shot Learning with Data Privacy and Objective-Hiding

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A three-stage protocol lets a federator train one hidden objective on private client data while clients see neither each other's labels nor the chosen task.

desk verdict Core ramp-secret-sharing plus graph-PIR construction is a genuine extension of [19] with sound rates, but the symmetric-privacy extension in Section VI breaks correctness because the added one-time pad R_p is not canceled during reconstruction, leaving Theorem 4 unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21182 v1 pith:6P6I6B2Y submitted 2025-04-29 cs.CR cs.DCcs.ITcs.LGmath.ITstat.ML

Maximilian Egger , Rüdiger Urbanke , Rawad Bitar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CRcs.DCcs.ITcs.LGmath.ITstat.ML MSC 94A6268P2794B05
keywords federatedlearningobjective-hidingprivateinformationretrievalsecretsharinginformation-theoreticprivacysecureaggregationknowledgedistillationReed-Solomoncodes
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that a federator can train one target model from many private client datasets without either exposing the clients' data or revealing which target model is being trained. The key move is to turn arbitrary non-linear training into label generation on a shared public dataset, so that each client's contribution becomes an additively separable function of its data. Those labels are secret-shared among clients using McEliece-Sarwate (ramp) secret sharing, and the federator then retrieves only the aggregated labels for its chosen objective through a graph-based private information retrieval scheme. The claimed result is information-theoretic privacy: up to $z_s$ colluding clients learn nothing about other clients' labels, up to $z_q$ colluding clients learn nothing about which objective was requested, and (with shared randomness) the federator learns nothing beyond the aggregate labels for the requested objective. The rates are $R_{\text{share}} = (\rho - z_s - z_q + 1)/(2T\rho(\rho-1))$ and $R_{\text{PIR}} = (\rho - z_s - z_q + 1)/(2n)$.

What carries the argument

The engine is a pair of polynomials over $\mathbb{F}_q$: a McEliece-Sarwate (ramp) secret sharing polynomial $f^{(t)}_{i,p}(x)$ whose low-degree coefficients hold a block of a client's labels and whose high-degree coefficients are randomness, and a query polynomial $q^{(t,j)}_p(x)$ that is a secret sharing of a Kronecker delta indicating the target objective $j$. Clients sum incoming shares to obtain codewords of a generalized Reed-Solomon (GRS) code, and answer by evaluating the product polynomial scaled by dual-code coefficients $\nu_{t,i}$; summing weighted answers over clients cancels every term except the target aggregate because the $\nu$ factors annihilate low-degree monomials. This cancellation property is what allows arbitrary task-assignment graphs and is the mechanism that makes the rate formulas hold.

What would settle it

Run the Section VI protocol twice with the same shared-randomness polynomial $R_p(x)$ for two different target objectives; if the federator can subtract one answer set from the other and recover non-target aggregate labels, then the one-time-pad assumption is violated and Theorem 4's symmetric-privacy guarantee collapses for reused randomness. More directly, a federator that obtains any client's stored shares together with the shared randomness can reconstruct $R_p$ and decode the interference terms.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that objective-hiding and data privacy can be achieved simultaneously, in the information-theoretic sense, for arbitrary non-linear federated learning tasks, provided the clients first convert their trained models into labels on a public unlabeled dataset. The federator asks for one of $T$ candidate objectives; by combining secret-sharing-based secure aggregation with a graph-based private information retrieval scheme built from the duals of Reed-Solomon codes, the protocol lets the federator compute exactly the sum of labels for that objective while learning nothing else, and prevents colluding clients from learning either individual labels or the requested objective. Theorems 1 through 4 state the rates and privacy guarantees; Theorem 4 adds symmetric privacy on the assumption of shared randomness among clients unknown to the federator.

Load-bearing premise

The symmetric-privacy result assumes all clients share a random one-time pad that the federator cannot learn; if that shared randomness is leaked, reused, or impossible to set up out-of-band, the federator can unmask the interference terms and read aggregated labels for objectives it did not request.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the protocol is correct, a server can fine-tune a model on decentralized private data for one target among many without the participating clients learning which task is being trained, and the guarantee does not rely on computational hardness assumptions.
  • The explicit rates give a computable operating point: for fixed numbers of clients $n$ and objectives $T$, increasing $\rho$ (the number of clients computing each objective) improves the PIR rate but degrades the sharing rate, so one can optimize total communication cost over $\rho$.
  • The scheme's total communication cost is claimed to be lower than applying existing graph-based PIR schemes in the query stage, while the star-product approach is competitive only in the non-graph-based case $\rho = n$.
  • Because the protocol is one-shot, it avoids iterative model-inversion attacks and the repeated communication overhead that privacy mechanisms would add to standard federated learning.
  • The privacy guarantees protect both directions at once: clients hide individual labels from other clients and from the federator, and the federator hides its objective from colluding clients.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The shared-randomness assumption in Section VI is the hidden cost of symmetric privacy: without a specified out-of-band mechanism for distributing and protecting the random polynomial $R_p(x)$, Theorem 4's guarantee rests on a setup assumption rather than on the communication protocol alone.
  • The same machinery could be adapted to any additively separable finite-field-valued statistic, not just classification labels, by replacing the label vectors with other function outputs and keeping the rate formulas unchanged.
  • Because labels are quantized predictions on a public dataset, the data-privacy guarantee protects training data only to the extent that those predictions do not themselves encode identifiable information; differential-privacy-style protection of the labels is not claimed.
  • A natural stress test is to reuse the same shared randomness across two runs of the protocol: if the federator can then subtract the answers and recover the interference coefficients, the one-time pad has failed and aggregated labels for non-target objectives become visible.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a three-stage protocol for one-shot federated learning with a public unlabeled dataset. In Stage 0 each objective is assigned to rho of n clients; in Stage 1 clients use McEliece-Sarwate secret sharing so that each client stores a share of the sum of the labels for each objective; in Stage 2 the federator queries all clients with graph-based PIR-style query polynomials and combines the answers with dual-GRS weights nu_{t,i} so that all undesired terms cancel. The claimed rates are Rshare = (rho - zs - zq + 1)/(2 T rho (rho - 1)) and RPIR = (rho - zq - zs + 1)/(2n), with information-theoretic privacy of the clients' labels from up to zs colluding clients and objective-hiding from up to zq colluding clients. An extension in Section VI adds a client-side one-time pad R_p(x) and claims symmetric privacy from the federator (Theorem 4).

Significance. The core Section V construction is a genuine attempt to co-design secure aggregation and graph-based PIR, and the algebraic cancellation argument is explicit and internally coherent for the non-symmetric setting; the rate formulas follow directly from the parameters, and the comparison with GXSTPIR and star-product PIR is informative. However, the symmetric-privacy extension is not correct as written: the one-time pad that masks interference also prevents the federator's reconstruction, so Theorem 4 does not establish the paper's headline privacy-plus-utility claim. The non-symmetric scheme and the rate analysis may still be salvageable after substantial revision.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section VI, Theorem 4] The extension to symmetric privacy breaks the reconstruction of Section V. The claim that 'the recovery process as in Section V remains unchanged' is incorrect: with A'_p(alpha_i) = sum_t nu_{t,i} F_t(alpha_i) q_t(alpha_i) + R_p(alpha_i), the recovery sum becomes A^(vartheta) = sum_i alpha_i^{-vartheta} A'_p(alpha_i) = (desired triangular terms) + sum_{tau=1}^{kC+zq-1} s_{p,tau} sum_{i=1}^n alpha_i^{kC-zs+tau-1-vartheta}. The inner sums are over all n clients and contain no nu_{t,i} factors, so the dual-GRS cancellation does not apply; for example, with n=5, q=7, vartheta=1 and tau=1, sum_{i=1}^5 alpha^i = 6 mod 7 for a primitive alpha. Since the federator does not know the shared randomness s_{p,tau}, it cannot subtract these terms and hence cannot decode the aggregate labels {sum_{i in I(e_j)} y^{(j)}_{i,p,u}}. Thus Theorem 4's correctness claim is unsupported. A fix would require either constraining R_p to the kernel of the reconstruction map, which would reduce its entropy and invalidate the one-time-pad argument as written, or specifying a different recovery procedure that cancels the pad.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section V, Theorem 3] The theorem conditions on answers from clients i in I(e_j) only, but the proof and the reconstruction in Section V use the answers from all n clients; conditioning on the subset I(e_j) is insufficient to cancel the interference terms, so the statement should read i in [n].
  2. [Section III, Definition 2] The notation Q^{(t)}_{T_s} in Definition 2 should be Q^{(t)}_{T_q}, since the colluding set in the objective-hiding definition is T_q and the parameter z_s is not involved.
  3. [Section VI] The answer A'_p(alpha_i) is written as a sum over t=1..T, but F_t and nu_{t,i} are only defined for t in I(i); the sum should be over I(i), or one should define nu_{t,i}=0 for t not in I(i).
  4. [Section VI] The shared randomness R_p is introduced only in the extension section and is absent from the system model and Definitions 1-3; the out-of-band mechanism by which all clients share R_p while hiding it from the federator is unspecified, and this assumption is load-bearing for Theorem 4.
  5. [Section V, b)] The field-size condition q >= max{rho + kC - zs, (gamma-1)n} should also include q-1 >= n, since the evaluation points alpha_i = alpha^i for a generator alpha are distinct only if n <= q-1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: all rate and privacy statements are computed directly from explicit construction parameters, with no fitted inputs and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The sharing and PIR rates in Proposition 1 and Theorem 1 are algebraic consequences of the protocol's explicit definitions (e.g., k_C = (rho - z_q + z_s + 1)/2 and the query polynomial (2)); they are not obtained by fitting parameters to target answers. Theorem 2's privacy proof uses standard secret-sharing and dual-GRS properties stated in the paper, not a self-citation chain. The only self-citation, [57], appears in Related Work as one of several examples of alternative secure aggregation models and is not used as evidence for any load-bearing claim. The possible issue that the one-time pad R_p(x) in Theorem 4 may not be cancelled by the Section V recovery sums is a correctness concern, not a circular-derivation concern. Accordingly, no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a protocol construction, not an empirical model. There are no fitted constants: rho, kC, q, zs, zq are design and assumption parameters. The main overheads are the domain assumptions listed, especially the public dataset, additive separability via distillation, and client-shared randomness for symmetric privacy.

free parameters (3)
  • rho (replication degree)
    Column weight of the task-assignment incidence matrix; chosen by the system designer. All rates and costs scale with rho; it is not fitted to data.
  • kC (storage code dimension) = (rho - zq + zs + 1)/2
    Set by the authors to balance sharing and PIR rates; a design rule derived in Section V, not a fitted constant.
  • finite field size q = >= max{rho + kC - zs, (gamma - 1)n}
    Chosen to ensure invertibility of the reconstruction matrix and to avoid overflow when summing quantized labels; not fitted to data.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption A public unlabeled dataset D_pub with s samples is available to all clients and the federator.
    Stated in Section IV and Section V.a; labels of this dataset are the messages that get shared and retrieved.
  • domain assumption The desired function or objective is additively separable: h_j(union D_i) = sum_i h_j(D_i), realized via local training and labeling of D_pub.
    Section III; this is what allows linear aggregation of labels.
  • domain assumption At most zs clients collude against data privacy and at most zq clients collude against objective-hiding; clients are honest-but-curious.
    Definitions 1-3 and Theorem 2; the protocol does not handle malicious deviations.
  • domain assumption For symmetric privacy, all clients share randomness unknown to the federator.
    Section VI; the one-time-pad masking of interference terms in Theorem 4 requires this.
  • domain assumption Task assignment has constant column weight rho and evaluation points are powers of a field generator alpha.
    Sections V.a and Lemma 2; the dual-GRS interference cancellation and invertibility require this structure.
  • domain assumption No dropout or stragglers; all clients complete the sharing and query stages.
    Section VIII lists dropout and malicious behavior as open problems.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Federated One-Shot Learning with Data Privacy and Objective-Hiding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6P6I6B2Y

@misc{pith2026250421182,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Federated One-Shot Learning with Data Privacy and Objective-Hiding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6P6I6B2Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21182}
}
read the original abstract

Privacy in federated learning is crucial, encompassing two key aspects: safeguarding the privacy of clients' data and maintaining the privacy of the federator's objective from the clients. While the first aspect has been extensively studied, the second has received much less attention. We present a novel approach that addresses both concerns simultaneously, drawing inspiration from techniques in knowledge distillation and private information retrieval to provide strong information-theoretic privacy guarantees. Traditional private function computation methods could be used here; however, they are typically limited to linear or polynomial functions. To overcome these constraints, our approach unfolds in three stages. In stage 0, clients perform the necessary computations locally. In stage 1, these results are shared among the clients, and in stage 2, the federator retrieves its desired objective without compromising the privacy of the clients' data. The crux of the method is a carefully designed protocol that combines secret-sharing-based multi-party computation and a graph-based private information retrieval scheme. We show that our method outperforms existing tools from the literature when properly adapted to this setting.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21182 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. High-level description of a three-stage protocol that first establishes in two stages (assignment and sharing) an MDS-coded data storage pattern based on secret sharing that encodes the aggregated clients computation results for all objectives, and then queries the result for the objective of interest. Example 1. To illustrate the challenges, we explain and contrast two approaches to solve this motivating example. A… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the sharing and query phase of our protocol. The objective of interest is hidden from the curious clients. The clients do not learn about the other clients’ results. The federator only learns the aggregate clients’ results for the objective of interest. where δ (t,j) ℓ = ( 1 if t = j 0 otherwise , and k (t) ℓ ∈ F c q are cho￾sen independently and uniformly at random. Each client i receives the query … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Communication Cost in sc symbols in Fq compared to our three￾stage protocol paired with GXSTPIR [19] and the Star-Product scheme with optimized storage code dimension k ⋆ C according to Lemma 1. The latter is limited to ρ = n, i.e., to non-graph-based settings. The parameters are chosen as n = 10, T = 10, and zs = zq = 1. is interested in only one objective j ∈ [T], the overall sharing rate is kC−zs T ρ(ρ−1) . c) Qu… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Secret Sharing rates compared to GXSTPIR [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [19]

    On the asymptotic capacity of x-secure t- private information retrieval with graph-based replicated storage,

    Z. Jia and S. A. Jafar, “On the asymptotic capacity of x-secure t- private information retrieval with graph-based replicated storage,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 66, no. 10, pp. 6280–6296, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [57]

    Private aggregation in hierarchical wireless federated learning with partial and full collusion,

    M. Egger, C. Hofmeister, A. Wachter-Zeh, and R. Bitar, “Private aggregation in hierarchical wireless federated learning with partial and full collusion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14088 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    Federated one-shot learning with data privacy and objective-hiding,

    M. Egger, R. Urbanke, and R. Bitar, “Federated one-shot learning with data privacy and objective-hiding,” accepted for presentation at IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) , 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [2]

    Practical secure aggrega- tion for privacy-preserving machine learning,

    K. Bonawitz, V . Ivanov, B. Kreuter, A. Marcedone, H. B. McMahan, S. Patel, D. Ramage, A. Segal, and K. Seth, “Practical secure aggrega- tion for privacy-preserving machine learning,” in ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security , 2017, pp. 1175–1191

    work page 2017

  5. [3]

    Advances and open problems in federated learning,

    P. Kairouz, H. B. McMahan, B. Avent, A. Bellet, M. Bennis, A. N. Bhagoji, K. Bonawitz, Z. Charles, G. Cormode, R. Cummings et al. , “Advances and open problems in federated learning,” Foundations and trends® in machine learning , vol. 14, no. 1–2, pp. 1–210, 2021. 13

    work page 2021

  6. [4]

    A survey on federated learning systems: Vision, hype and reality for data privacy and protection,

    Q. Li, Z. Wen, Z. Wu, S. Hu, N. Wang, Y . Li, X. Liu, and B. He, “A survey on federated learning systems: Vision, hype and reality for data privacy and protection,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 3347–3366, 2021

    2021

  7. [5]

    A survey on federated learning: challenges and applications,

    J. Wen, Z. Zhang, Y . Lan, Z. Cui, J. Cai, and W. Zhang, “A survey on federated learning: challenges and applications,” International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 513–535, 2023

    2023

  8. [6]

    Heterogeneous feder- ated learning: State-of-the-art and research challenges,

    M. Ye, X. Fang, B. Du, P. C. Yuen, and D. Tao, “Heterogeneous feder- ated learning: State-of-the-art and research challenges,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 1–44, 2023

    2023

Show all 79 references
  1. [7]

    IHVFL: a privacy-enhanced intention-hiding vertical federated learning framework for medical data,

    F. Tang, S. Liang, G. Ling, and J. Shan, “IHVFL: a privacy-enhanced intention-hiding vertical federated learning framework for medical data,” Cybersecurity, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 37, 2023

    2023

  2. [8]

    Adaptive multi-teacher multi-level knowledge distillation,

    Y . Liu, W. Zhang, and J. Wang, “Adaptive multi-teacher multi-level knowledge distillation,” Neurocomputing, vol. 415, pp. 106–113, 2020

    2020

  3. [9]

    Auditing private prediction,

    K. Chadha, M. Jagielski, N. Papernot, C. Choquette-Choo, and M. Nasr, “Auditing private prediction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09403 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Private computation of systematically encoded data with colluding servers,

    D. Karpuk, “Private computation of systematically encoded data with colluding servers,” in IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), 2018, pp. 2112–2116

    2018

  5. [11]

    Private polynomial computation from lagrange encoding,

    N. Raviv and D. A. Karpuk, “Private polynomial computation from lagrange encoding,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 15, pp. 553–563, 2019

    2019

  6. [12]

    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

    2018

  7. [13]

    PIR from storage constrained databases-coded caching meets pir,

    R. Tandon, M. Abdul-Wahid, F. Almoualem, and D. Kumar, “PIR from storage constrained databases-coded caching meets pir,” in IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC) , 2018, pp. 1–7

    2018

  8. [14]

    Private function retrieval,

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

    2018

  9. [15]

    Achievable rate of private function retrieval from mds coded databases,

    S. A. Obead and J. Kliewer, “Achievable rate of private function retrieval from mds coded databases,” in IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) , 2018, pp. 2117–2121

    2018

  10. [16]

    Private informa- tion retrieval,

    B. Chor, E. Kushilevitz, O. Goldreich, and M. Sudan, “Private informa- tion retrieval,” Journal of the ACM , vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 965–981, 1998

    1998

  11. [17]

    Private information retrieval from coded databases with colluding servers,

    R. Freij-Hollanti, O. W. Gnilke, C. Hollanti, and D. A. Karpuk, “Private information retrieval from coded databases with colluding servers,” SIAM Journal on Applied Algebra and Geometry , vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 647–664, 2017

    2017

  12. [18]

    Private information retrieval in graph-based replication systems,

    N. Raviv, I. Tamo, and E. Yaakobi, “Private information retrieval in graph-based replication systems,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 3590–3602, 2019

    2019

  13. [20]

    Private information retrieval from non- replicated databases,

    K. Banawan and S. Ulukus, “Private information retrieval from non- replicated databases,” in IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), 2019, pp. 1272–1276

    2019

  14. [21]

    Symmetric private information retrieval from mds coded distributed storage with non-colluding and colluding servers,

    Q. Wang and M. Skoglund, “Symmetric private information retrieval from mds coded distributed storage with non-colluding and colluding servers,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 65, no. 8, pp. 5160–5175, 2019

    2019

  15. [22]

    Private retrieval, computing, and learning: Recent progress and future challenges,

    S. Ulukus, S. Avestimehr, M. Gastpar, S. A. Jafar, R. Tandon, and C. Tian, “Private retrieval, computing, and learning: Recent progress and future challenges,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 729–748, 2022

    2022

  16. [23]

    A guided walk through coded private information retrieval,

    R. G. D’Oliveira and S. El Rouayheb, “A guided walk through coded private information retrieval,” IEEE BITS the Information Theory Mag- azine, 2024

    2024

  17. [24]

    Symmetric private polynomial computation from lagrange encoding,

    J. Zhu, Q. Yan, X. Tang, and S. Li, “Symmetric private polynomial computation from lagrange encoding,” IEEE Transactions on Informa- tion Theory, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 2704–2718, 2022

    2022

  18. [25]

    Private linear com- putation for noncolluding coded databases,

    S. A. Obead, H.-Y . Lin, E. Rosnes, and J. Kliewer, “Private linear com- putation for noncolluding coded databases,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 847–861, 2022

    2022

  19. [26]

    Private function computation,

    B. Tahmasebi and M. A. Maddah-Ali, “Private function computation,” in IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) , 2020, pp. 1118–1123

    2020

  20. [27]

    Private sequential function computation,

    ——, “Private sequential function computation,” in IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) , 2019, pp. 1667–1671

    2019

  21. [28]

    Private polynomial function computation for noncolluding coded databases,

    S. A. Obead, H.-Y . Lin, E. Rosnes, and J. Kliewer, “Private polynomial function computation for noncolluding coded databases,” IEEE Trans- actions on Information Forensics and Security , vol. 17, pp. 1800–1813, 2022

    2022

  22. [29]

    Bounds on the length of functional PIR and batch codes,

    Y . Zhang, T. Etzion, and E. Yaakobi, “Bounds on the length of functional PIR and batch codes,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 66, no. 8, pp. 4917–4934, 2020

    2020

  23. [30]

    X-secure t-private linear computation with graph based replicated storage,

    H. Jia and Z. Jia, “X-secure t-private linear computation with graph based replicated storage,” in IEEE International Symposium on Infor- mation Theory (ISIT) , 2023, pp. 1586–1591

    2023

  24. [31]

    The asymptotic capacity of x-secure t-private linear computation with graph based replicated storage,

    ——, “The asymptotic capacity of x-secure t-private linear computation with graph based replicated storage,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 2024

    2024

  25. [32]

    Multi-server private linear computation with joint and individual privacy guarantees,

    N. Esmati, A. Heidarzadeh, and A. Sprintson, “Multi-server private linear computation with joint and individual privacy guarantees,” in International Symposium Problems of Redundancy in Information and Control Systems, 2021, pp. 1–6

    2021

  26. [33]

    Private computation with individual and joint privacy,

    A. Heidarzadeh and A. Sprintson, “Private computation with individual and joint privacy,” in IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), 2020, pp. 1112–1117

    2020

  27. [34]

    Private inner product retrieval for distributed machine learning,

    M. H. Mousavi, M. A. Maddah-Ali, and M. Mirmohseni, “Private inner product retrieval for distributed machine learning,” inIEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) , 2019, pp. 355–359

    2019

  28. [35]

    Multi-server private linear transformation with joint privacy,

    F. Kazemi and A. Sprintson, “Multi-server private linear transformation with joint privacy,” inInternational Symposium Problems of Redundancy in Information and Control Systems , 2021, pp. 182–187

    2021

  29. [36]

    Single-server private linear transformation: The joint privacy case,

    A. Heidarzadeh, N. Esmati, and A. Sprintson, “Single-server private linear transformation: The joint privacy case,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 899–911, 2022

    2022

  30. [37]

    Semi-supervised learning,

    S.-S. Learning, “Semi-supervised learning,” MIT Press , vol. 5, p. 2, 2006

    2006

  31. [38]

    On sharing secrets and reed-solomon codes,

    R. J. McEliece and D. V . Sarwate, “On sharing secrets and reed-solomon codes,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 583–584, 1981

    1981

  32. [39]

    Breaking the mds-pir capacity barrier via joint storage coding,

    H. Sun and C. Tian, “Breaking the mds-pir capacity barrier via joint storage coding,” Information, vol. 10, no. 9, p. 265, 2019

    2019

  33. [40]

    On the storage cost of private information retrieval,

    C. Tian, “On the storage cost of private information retrieval,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 66, no. 12, pp. 7539–7549, 2020

    2020

  34. [41]

    Private information retrieval from non-replicated databases with optimal message size,

    S. N. Keramaati and S. Salehkalaibar, “Private information retrieval from non-replicated databases with optimal message size,” in Iran Workshop on Communication and Information Theory , 2020, pp. 1–6

    2020

  35. [42]

    Bounds on the capacity of pir over graphs,

    B. Sadeh, Y . Gu, and I. Tamo, “Bounds on the capacity of pir over graphs,” in 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1913–1918

    2021

  36. [43]

    The capacity of 4-star-graph pir,

    Y . Yao and S. A. Jafar, “The capacity of 4-star-graph pir,” in 2023 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1603–1608

    2023

  37. [44]

    Cross subspace alignment and the asymptotic capacity of x-secure t-private information retrieval,

    Z. Jia, H. Sun, and S. A. Jafar, “Cross subspace alignment and the asymptotic capacity of x-secure t-private information retrieval,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 65, no. 9, pp. 5783–5798, 2019

    2019

  38. [45]

    Algebraic geometry codes for cross-subspace alignment in private information retrieval,

    O. Makkonen, D. A. Karpuk, and C. Hollanti, “Algebraic geometry codes for cross-subspace alignment in private information retrieval,” in IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) , 2024, pp. 2874–2879

    2024

  39. [46]

    Secret sharing for secure and private information retrieval: A construction using algebraic geometry codes,

    O. Makkonen, D. Karpuk, and C. Hollanti, “Secret sharing for secure and private information retrieval: A construction using algebraic geometry codes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00542 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Bounds and protocols for graph-based distributed secret sharing,

    R. De Prisco, A. De Santis, and F. Palmieri, “Bounds and protocols for graph-based distributed secret sharing,” IEEE Transactions on Depend- able and Secure Computing , vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 434–448, 2023

    2023

  41. [48]

    Semantic private information retrieval,

    S. Vithana, K. Banawan, and S. Ulukus, “Semantic private information retrieval,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 2635–2652, 2021

    2021

  42. [49]

    On the capacity of private nonlinear computation for replicated databases,

    S. A. Obead, H.-Y . Lin, E. Rosnes, and J. Kliewer, “On the capacity of private nonlinear computation for replicated databases,” in IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW) , 2019, pp. 1–5

    2019

  43. [50]

    Secure single-server aggregation with (poly)logarithmic overhead,

    J. H. Bell, K. A. Bonawitz, A. Gasc ´on, T. Lepoint, and M. Raykova, “Secure single-server aggregation with (poly)logarithmic overhead,” in ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security , 2020, p. 1253–1269

    2020

  44. [51]

    Turbo-aggregate: Breaking the quadratic aggregation barrier in secure federated learning,

    J. So, B. G ¨uler, and A. S. Avestimehr, “Turbo-aggregate: Breaking the quadratic aggregation barrier in secure federated learning,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory , vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 479–489, 2021

    2021

  45. [52]

    Fast- SecAgg: Scalable secure aggregation for privacy-preserving federated learning,

    S. Kadhe, N. Rajaraman, O. O. Koyluoglu, and K. Ramchandran, “Fast- SecAgg: Scalable secure aggregation for privacy-preserving federated learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.11248 , 2020

    2009 arXiv

  46. [53]

    LightSecAgg: a lightweight and versatile design for secure aggregation in federated learning,

    J. So, C. J. Nolet, C.-S. Yang, S. Li, Q. Yu, R. E. Ali, B. Guler, and S. Avestimehr, “LightSecAgg: a lightweight and versatile design for secure aggregation in federated learning,” in Machine Learning and Systems, vol. 4, 2022, pp. 694–720. 14

    2022

  47. [54]

    Swiftagg+: Achieving asymptotically optimal communication loads in secure ag- gregation for federated learning,

    T. Jahani-Nezhad, M. A. Maddah-Ali, S. Li, and G. Caire, “Swiftagg+: Achieving asymptotically optimal communication loads in secure ag- gregation for federated learning,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 977–989, 2023

    2023

  48. [55]

    Codedpaddedfl and codedsecagg: Straggler mitigation and secure aggregation in feder- ated learning,

    R. Schlegel, S. Kumar, E. Rosnes, and A. G. i. Amat, “Codedpaddedfl and codedsecagg: Straggler mitigation and secure aggregation in feder- ated learning,” IEEE Transactions on Communications , vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 2013–2027, 2023

    2013

  49. [56]

    Secure aggregation for clustered federated learning,

    H. U. Sami and B. G ¨uler, “Secure aggregation for clustered federated learning,” in IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), 2023, pp. 186–191

    2023

  50. [58]

    Privacy-preserving polynomial com- puting over distributed data,

    Z. Tan, D. Yuan, and Z. Huang, “Privacy-preserving polynomial com- puting over distributed data,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.09315 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Information-theoretically private matrix mul- tiplication from mds-coded storage,

    J. Zhu, S. Li, and J. Li, “Information-theoretically private matrix mul- tiplication from mds-coded storage,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 18, pp. 1680–1695, 2023

    2023

  52. [60]

    Private read update write (pruw) in federated submodel learning (fsl): Communication efficient schemes with and without sparsification,

    S. Vithana and S. Ulukus, “Private read update write (pruw) in federated submodel learning (fsl): Communication efficient schemes with and without sparsification,” IEEE Transactions on Information theory, 2023

    2023

  53. [61]

    Symmetric private information retrieval with mismatched coded messages and randomness,

    Q. Wang, H. Sun, and M. Skoglund, “Symmetric private information retrieval with mismatched coded messages and randomness,” in 2019 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 365–369

    2019

  54. [62]

    Symmetric private information retrieval with user-side common randomness,

    Z. Wang and S. Ulukus, “Symmetric private information retrieval with user-side common randomness,” in IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) , 2021, pp. 2119–2124

    2021

  55. [63]

    Digital blind box: Random symmetric private information re- trieval,

    ——, “Digital blind box: Random symmetric private information re- trieval,” in IEEE Information Theory Workshop , 2022, pp. 95–100

    2022

  56. [64]

    One-out-of-q ot combiners,

    O. Farr `as and J. Ribes-Gonz ´alez, “One-out-of-q ot combiners,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 2023

    2023

  57. [65]

    On combining classifiers,

    J. Kittler, M. Hatef, R. P. Duin, and J. Matas, “On combining classifiers,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 226–239, 1998

    1998

  58. [66]

    L. I. Kuncheva, Combining pattern classifiers: methods and algorithms . John Wiley & Sons, 2014

    2014

  59. [67]

    Ensemble based systems in decision making,

    R. Polikar, “Ensemble based systems in decision making,” IEEE Circuits and systems magazine , vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 21–45, 2006

    2006

  60. [68]

    Uni- fying heterogeneous classifiers with distillation,

    J. V ongkulbhisal, P. Vinayavekhin, and M. Visentini-Scarzanella, “Uni- fying heterogeneous classifiers with distillation,” in IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2019, pp. 3175–3184

    2019

  61. [69]

    Federated distillation: A survey,

    L. Li, J. Gou, B. Yu, L. Du, and Z. Y . D. Tao, “Federated distillation: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08564 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank,

    R. Socher, A. Perelygin, J. Wu, J. Chuang, C. D. Manning, A. Y . Ng, and C. Potts, “Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank,” in Proceedings of the 2013 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing , 2013, pp. 1631–1642

    2013

  63. [71]

    Character-level convolutional net- works for text classification,

    X. Zhang, J. Zhao, and Y . LeCun, “Character-level convolutional net- works for text classification,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 28, 2015

    2015

  64. [72]

    Learning question classifiers,

    X. Li and D. Roth, “Learning question classifiers,” in COLING 2002: The 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics , 2002

    2002

  65. [73]

    Reducing the gap between streaming and non-streaming transducer-based asr by adaptive two-stage knowledge distillation,

    H. Tang, Y . Fu, L. Sun, J. Xue, D. Liu, Y . Li, Z. Ma, M. Wu, J. Pan, G. Wan et al. , “Reducing the gap between streaming and non-streaming transducer-based asr by adaptive two-stage knowledge distillation,” in IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Pro...

    2023

  66. [74]

    Distilling the knowledge in a neural network,

    G. Hinton, “Distilling the knowledge in a neural network,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Cramer, I

    R. Cramer, I. B. Damg ˚ard et al. , Secure multiparty computation . Cambridge University Press, 2015

    2015

  68. [76]

    How to share a secret,

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

    1979

  69. [77]

    Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,

    B. McMahan, E. Moore, D. Ramage, S. Hampson, and B. A. y Arcas, “Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data,” in Artificial intelligence and statistics . PMLR, 2017, pp. 1273– 1282

    2017

  70. [78]

    Differential privacy,

    C. Dwork, “Differential privacy,” in International colloquium on au- tomata, languages, and programming , 2006, pp. 1–12

    2006

  71. [79]

    Perfect subset privacy for data sharing and learning,

    N. Raviv and Z. Goldfeld, “Perfect subset privacy for data sharing and learning,” in IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), 2022, pp. 1850–1855

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.