REVIEW 1 cited by
The Capacity of Cache Aided Private Information Retrieval
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
abstract
The problem of cache enabled private information retrieval (PIR) is considered in which a user wishes to privately retrieve one out of $K$ messages, each of size $L$ bits from $N$ distributed databases. The user has a local cache of storage $SL$ bits which can be used to store any function of the $K$ messages. The main contribution of this work is the exact characterization of the capacity of cache aided PIR as a function of the storage parameter $S$. In particular, for a given cache storage parameter $S$, the information-theoretically optimal download cost $D^{*}(S)/L$ (or the inverse of capacity) is shown to be equal to $(1- \frac{S}{K})\left(1+ \frac{1}{N}+ \ldots + \frac{1}{N^{K-1}}\right)$. Special cases of this result correspond to the settings when $S=0$, for which the optimal download cost was shown by Sun and Jafar to be $\left(1+ \frac{1}{N}+ \ldots + \frac{1}{N^{K-1}}\right)$, and the case when $S=K$, i.e., cache size is large enough to store all messages locally, for which the optimal download cost is $0$. The intermediate points $S\in (0, K)$ can be readily achieved through a simple memory-sharing based PIR scheme. The key technical contribution of this work is the converse, i.e., a lower bound on the download cost as a function of storage $S$ which shows that memory sharing is information-theoretically optimal.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
On the Capacity of Secure Distributed Batch Matrix Multiplication
The capacity of secure distributed batch matrix multiplication is characterized in several parameter regimes, and the previously claimed general capacity formula is shown to be incorrect.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.