DOCSLIB.ORG

The Gödel Prize 2020 - Call for Nominatonn

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Gödel Prize 2020 - Call for Nominatonn The Gödel Prize 2020 - Call for Nominatonn Deadline: February 15, 2020 The Gödel Prize for outntanding papern in the area of theoretial iomputer niienie in nponnored jointly by the European Annoiiaton for Theoretial Computer Siienie (EATCS) and the Annoiiaton for Computng Maihinery, Speiial Innterent Group on Algorithmn and Computaton Theory (AC M SInGACT) The award in prenented annually, with the prenentaton taaing plaie alternately at the Innternatonal Colloquium on Automata, Languagen, and Programming (InCALP) and the AC M Symponium on Theory of Computng (STOC) The 28th Gödel Prize will be awarded at the 47th Innternatonal Colloquium on Automata, Languagen, and Programming to be held during 8-12 July, 2020 in Beijing The Prize in named in honour of Kurt Gödel in reiogniton of hin major iontributonn to mathematial logii and of hin interent, diniovered in a leter he wrote to John von Neumann nhortly before von Neumann’n death, in what han beiome the famoun “P vernun NP” quenton The Prize iniluden an award of USD 5,000 Award Committee: The 2020 Award Commitee ionnintn of Samnon Abramnay (Univernity of Oxford), Anuj Dawar (Chair, Univernity of Cambridge), Joan Feigenbaum (Yale Univernity), Robert Krauthgamer (Weizmann Innnttute), Daniel Spielman (Yale Univernity) and David Zuiaerman (Univernity of Texan, Auntn) Eligibility: The 2020 Prize rulen are given below and they nupernede any diferent interpretaton of the generii rule to be found on webniten of both SInGACT and EATCS Any renearih paper or nerien of papern by a ningle author or by a team of authorn in deemed eligible if: - The main renultn were not publinhed (in either preliminary or fnal form) in a journal or ionferenie proieedingn before January 1nt, 2007 - The paper wan publinhed in a reiognized refereed journal no later than Deiember 31, 2019 The renearih wora nominated for the award nhould be in the area of theoretial iomputer niienie Nominatonn are eniouraged from the broadent npeitrum of the theoretial iomputer niienie iommunity no an to ennure that potental award winning papern are not overlooaed The Award Commitee nhall have the ultmate authority to deiide whether a partiular paper in eligible for the Prize Nominatonn: Nominatonn for the award nhould be nubmited by email to the Award Commitee Chair: anuj dawar@il iam ai ua Pleane maae nure that the Subjeit line of all nominatonn and related mennagen begin with “Goedel Prize 2020 ” To be ionnidered, nominatonn for the 2020 Prize munt be reieived by February 15, 2020 A nominaton paiaage nhould inilude: 1 A printable iopy (or iopien) of the journal paper(n) being nominated, together with a iomplete iitaton (or iitatonn) thereof 2 A ntatement of the date(n) and venue(n) of the frnt ionferenie or woranhop publiiaton(n) of the nominated wora(n) or a ntatement that no nuih publiiaton han oiiurred 3 A brief nummary of the teihniial iontent of the paper(n) and a brief explanaton of itn nigniFianie 4 A nupport leter or letern nigned by at leant two membern of the niientFi iommunity Additonal nupport letern may alno be reieived and are generally uneful The nominated paper(n) may be in any language However, if a nominated publiiaton in not in Englinh, the nominaton paiaage munt inilude an extended nummary writen in Englinh Thone intending to nubmit a nominaton nhould iontait the Award Commitee Chair by email well in advanie The Chair will annwer quentonn about eligibility, eniourage ioordinaton among diferent nominatorn for the name paper(n), and alno aiiept informal proponaln of potental nomineen or tentatve ofern to prepare formal nominatonn The iommitee maintainn a databane of pant nominatonn for eligible papern, but frenh nominatonn for the name papern (enpeiially if they highlight new evidenie of impait) are alwayn weliome Selecton Procenn: The Award Commitee in free to une any other nourien of informaton in additon to the onen mentoned above Int may nplit the award among multple papern, or deilare no winner at all All matern relatng to the neleiton proienn left unnpeiiFed in thin doiument are left to the dinireton of the Award Commitee Recent Winnern (all winnern ninie 1993 are linted at htp://www nigait org/Prizen/Godel/ and htp://eatin org/index php/goedel-prize): 2019: Inrit Dinur, The PCP theorem by gap amplifiaaoio Journal of the AC M (JAC M), Volume 54 Innnue 3, 2007 (preliminary vernion in Symponium on Theory of Computng, STOC 2006) 2018: Oded Regev, Oi latieso leariiig with errorso raidom liiear iodeso aid iryptography, Journal of the AC M (JAC M), Volume 56 Innnue 6, 2009 (preliminary vernion in Symponium on Theory of Computng, STOC 2005) 2017: Cynthia Dwora, Frana MiSherry, Kobbi Ninnim and Adam Smith, Calibraaig Noise to eeisiaiity ii Priiate Data Aialysiso Journal of Privaiy and ConFdentality, Volume 7, Innnue 3, 2016 (preliminary vernion in Theory of Cryptography, TCC 2006) 2016: Stephen Brooaen, A eemaiais or Coiiurreit eeparaaoi ogii Theoretial Computer Siienie 375(1-3): 227-270 (2007) Peter W O’Hearn, Resourieso Coiiurreiiyo aid oial Reasoiiig Theoretial Computer Siienie 375(1-3): 271-307 (2007) 2015: Dan Spielman and Shang-Hua Teng, Nearly-liiear ame algorithms or graph paraaoiiigo graph sparsifiaaoio aid soliiig liiear systems, Proi 36th AC M Symponium on Theory of Computng, pp 81- 90, 2004; epeitral sparsifiaaoi o graphs, SInA M J Computng 40:981-1025, 2011; A loial ilusteriig algorithm or massiie graphs aid its appliiaaoi to iearly liiear ame graph paraaoiiig, SInA M J Computng 42:1-26, 2013; Nearly liiear ame algorithms or preioidiaoiiig aid soliiig symmetriio diagoially domiiait liiear systems, SInA M J Matrix Anal Appl 35:835-885, 2014 2014: Ronald Fagin, Amnon Lotem, and Moni Naor, Opamal Aggregaaoi Algorithms or Middleware, Journal of Computer and Syntem Siienien 66(4): 614–656, 2003 2013: Antoine Joux, A oie rouid protoiol or triparate Dife-Hellmai, J Cryptology 17(4): 263-276, 2004 Dan Boneh and Mathew K Franalin, Ideiaty-Based Eiirypaoi rom the Weil pairiig, SInA M J Comput 32(3): 586-615, 2003 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Zig-Zag Product
    High Dimensional Expanders Lecture 12: Agreement Tests Lecture by: Irit Dinur Scribe: Irit Dinur In this lecture we describe agreement tests, which are a generalization of direct product tests and low degree tests, both of which play a role in PCP constructions. It turns out that the underlying structures that support agreement tests are invariably some kind of high dimensional expander, as we shall see. 1 General Setup It is a basic fact of computation that any global computation can be broken down into a sequence of local steps. The PCP theorem [AS98, ALM+98] says that moreover, this can be done in a robust fashion, so that as long as most steps are correct, the entire computation checks out. At the heart of this is a local-to-global argument that allows deducing a global property from local pieces that fit together only approximately. In an agreement test, a function is given by an ensemble of local restrictions. The agreement test checks that the restrictions agree when they overlap, and the main question is whether typical agreement of the local pieces implies that there exists a global function that agrees with most local restrictions. Let us describe the basic framework, consisting of a quadruple (V; X; fFSgS2X ; D). • Ground set: Let V be a set of n points (or vertices). • Collection of small subsets: Let X be a collection of subsets S ⊂ V , typically for each S 2 X we have jSj n. • Local functions: for each subset S 2 X, there is a space FS ⊂ ff : S ! Σg of functions on S.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigating Statistical Privacy Frameworks from the Perspective of Hypothesis Testing 234 Able Quantity
    Investigating Statistical Privacy Frameworks from the Perspective of Hypothesis Testing 234 able quantity. Only a limited number of previous works which can provide a natural and interpretable guide- [29, 34, 35] have investigated the question of how to line for selecting proper privacy parameters by system select a proper value of ǫ, but these approaches ei- designers and researchers. Furthermore, we extend our ther require complicated economic models or lack the analysis on unbounded DP to bounded DP and the ap- analysis of adversaries with arbitrary auxiliary informa- proximate (ǫ, δ)-DP. tion (see Section 2.3 for more details). Our work is in- Impact of Auxiliary Information. The conjecture spired by the interpretation of differential privacy via that auxiliary information can influence the design of hypothesis testing, initially introduced by Wasserman DP mechanisms has been made in prior work [8, 28, 32, and Zhou [27, 30, 60]. However, this interpretation has 33, 39, 65]. We therefore investigate the adversary’s ca- not been systematically investigated before in the con- pability based on hypothesis testing under three types text of our research objective, i.e., reasoning about the of auxiliary information: the prior distribution of the in- choice of the privacy parameter ǫ (see Section 2.4 for put record, the correlation across records, and the corre- more details). lation across time. Our analysis demonstrates that the We consider hypothesis testing [2, 45, 61] as the tool auxiliary information indeed influences the appropriate used by the adversary to infer sensitive information of selection of ǫ. The results suggest that, when possible an individual record (e.g., the presence or absence of and available, the practitioners of DP should explicitly a record in the database for unbounded DP) from the incorporate adversary’s auxiliary information into the outputs of privacy mechanisms.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008 Annual Report
    2008 Annual Report NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING ENGINEERING THE FUTURE 1 Letter from the President 3 In Service to the Nation 3 Mission Statement 4 Program Reports 4 Engineering Education 4 Center for the Advancement of Scholarship on Engineering Education 6 Technological Literacy 6 Public Understanding of Engineering Developing Effective Messages Media Relations Public Relations Grand Challenges for Engineering 8 Center for Engineering, Ethics, and Society 9 Diversity in the Engineering Workforce Engineer Girl! Website Engineer Your Life Project Engineering Equity Extension Service 10 Frontiers of Engineering Armstrong Endowment for Young Engineers-Gilbreth Lectures 12 Engineering and Health Care 14 Technology and Peace Building 14 Technology for a Quieter America 15 America’s Energy Future 16 Terrorism and the Electric Power-Delivery System 16 U.S.-China Cooperation on Electricity from Renewables 17 U.S.-China Symposium on Science and Technology Strategic Policy 17 Offshoring of Engineering 18 Gathering Storm Still Frames the Policy Debate 20 2008 NAE Awards Recipients 22 2008 New Members and Foreign Associates 24 2008 NAE Anniversary Members 28 2008 Private Contributions 28 Einstein Society 28 Heritage Society 29 Golden Bridge Society 29 Catalyst Society 30 Rosette Society 30 Challenge Society 30 Charter Society 31 Other Individual Donors 34 The Presidents’ Circle 34 Corporations, Foundations, and Other Organizations 35 National Academy of Engineering Fund Financial Report 37 Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants 41 Notes to Financial Statements 53 Officers 53 Councillors 54 Staff 54 NAE Publications Letter from the President Engineering is critical to meeting the fundamental challenges facing the U.S. economy in the 21st century.
    [Show full text]
  • Concurrent Non-Malleable Zero Knowledge Proofs
    Concurrent Non-Malleable Zero Knowledge Proofs Huijia Lin?, Rafael Pass??, Wei-Lung Dustin Tseng???, and Muthuramakrishnan Venkitasubramaniam Cornell University, {huijia,rafael,wdtseng,vmuthu}@cs.cornell.edu Abstract. Concurrent non-malleable zero-knowledge (NMZK) consid- ers the concurrent execution of zero-knowledge protocols in a setting where the attacker can simultaneously corrupt multiple provers and ver- ifiers. Barak, Prabhakaran and Sahai (FOCS’06) recently provided the first construction of a concurrent NMZK protocol without any set-up assumptions. Their protocol, however, is only computationally sound (a.k.a., a concurrent NMZK argument). In this work we present the first construction of a concurrent NMZK proof without any set-up assump- tions. Our protocol requires poly(n) rounds assuming one-way functions, or O~(log n) rounds assuming collision-resistant hash functions. As an additional contribution, we improve the round complexity of con- current NMZK arguments based on one-way functions (from poly(n) to O~(log n)), and achieve a near linear (instead of cubic) security reduc- tions. Taken together, our results close the gap between concurrent ZK protocols and concurrent NMZK protocols (in terms of feasibility, round complexity, hardness assumptions, and tightness of the security reduc- tion). 1 Introduction Zero-knowledge (ZK) interactive proofs [GMR89] are fundamental constructs that allow the Prover to convince the Verifier of the validity of a mathematical statement x 2 L, while providing zero additional knowledge to the Verifier. Con- current ZK, first introduced and achieved by Dwork, Naor and Sahai [DNS04], considers the execution of zero-knowledge protocols in an asynchronous and con- current setting.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Communication Systems 2.2 Optimal Source Coding
    Digital Communication Systems EES 452 Asst. Prof. Dr. Prapun Suksompong [email protected] 2. Source Coding 2.2 Optimal Source Coding: Huffman Coding: Origin, Recipe, MATLAB Implementation 1 Examples of Prefix Codes Nonsingular Fixed-Length Code Shannon–Fano code Huffman Code 2 Prof. Robert Fano (1917-2016) Shannon Award (1976 ) Shannon–Fano Code Proposed in Shannon’s “A Mathematical Theory of Communication” in 1948 The method was attributed to Fano, who later published it as a technical report. Fano, R.M. (1949). “The transmission of information”. Technical Report No. 65. Cambridge (Mass.), USA: Research Laboratory of Electronics at MIT. Should not be confused with Shannon coding, the coding method used to prove Shannon's noiseless coding theorem, or with Shannon–Fano–Elias coding (also known as Elias coding), the precursor to arithmetic coding. 3 Claude E. Shannon Award Claude E. Shannon (1972) Elwyn R. Berlekamp (1993) Sergio Verdu (2007) David S. Slepian (1974) Aaron D. Wyner (1994) Robert M. Gray (2008) Robert M. Fano (1976) G. David Forney, Jr. (1995) Jorma Rissanen (2009) Peter Elias (1977) Imre Csiszár (1996) Te Sun Han (2010) Mark S. Pinsker (1978) Jacob Ziv (1997) Shlomo Shamai (Shitz) (2011) Jacob Wolfowitz (1979) Neil J. A. Sloane (1998) Abbas El Gamal (2012) W. Wesley Peterson (1981) Tadao Kasami (1999) Katalin Marton (2013) Irving S. Reed (1982) Thomas Kailath (2000) János Körner (2014) Robert G. Gallager (1983) Jack KeilWolf (2001) Arthur Robert Calderbank (2015) Solomon W. Golomb (1985) Toby Berger (2002) Alexander S. Holevo (2016) William L. Root (1986) Lloyd R. Welch (2003) David Tse (2017) James L.
    [Show full text]
  • FOCS 2005 Program SUNDAY October 23, 2005
    FOCS 2005 Program SUNDAY October 23, 2005 Talks in Grand Ballroom, 17th floor Session 1: 8:50am – 10:10am Chair: Eva´ Tardos 8:50 Agnostically Learning Halfspaces Adam Kalai, Adam Klivans, Yishay Mansour and Rocco Servedio 9:10 Noise stability of functions with low influences: invari- ance and optimality The 46th Annual IEEE Symposium on Elchanan Mossel, Ryan O’Donnell and Krzysztof Foundations of Computer Science Oleszkiewicz October 22-25, 2005 Omni William Penn Hotel, 9:30 Every decision tree has an influential variable Pittsburgh, PA Ryan O’Donnell, Michael Saks, Oded Schramm and Rocco Servedio Sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society Technical Committee on Mathematical Foundations of Computing 9:50 Lower Bounds for the Noisy Broadcast Problem In cooperation with ACM SIGACT Navin Goyal, Guy Kindler and Michael Saks Break 10:10am – 10:30am FOCS ’05 gratefully acknowledges financial support from Microsoft Research, Yahoo! Research, and the CMU Aladdin center Session 2: 10:30am – 12:10pm Chair: Satish Rao SATURDAY October 22, 2005 10:30 The Unique Games Conjecture, Integrality Gap for Cut Problems and Embeddability of Negative Type Metrics Tutorials held at CMU University Center into `1 [Best paper award] Reception at Omni William Penn Hotel, Monongahela Room, Subhash Khot and Nisheeth Vishnoi 17th floor 10:50 The Closest Substring problem with small distances Tutorial 1: 1:30pm – 3:30pm Daniel Marx (McConomy Auditorium) Chair: Irit Dinur 11:10 Fitting tree metrics: Hierarchical clustering and Phy- logeny Subhash Khot Nir Ailon and Moses Charikar On the Unique Games Conjecture 11:30 Metric Embeddings with Relaxed Guarantees Break 3:30pm – 4:00pm Ittai Abraham, Yair Bartal, T-H.
    [Show full text]
  • The Limits of Post-Selection Generalization
    The Limits of Post-Selection Generalization Kobbi Nissim∗ Adam Smithy Thomas Steinke Georgetown University Boston University IBM Research – Almaden [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Uri Stemmerz Jonathan Ullmanx Ben-Gurion University Northeastern University [email protected] [email protected] Abstract While statistics and machine learning offers numerous methods for ensuring gener- alization, these methods often fail in the presence of post selection—the common practice in which the choice of analysis depends on previous interactions with the same dataset. A recent line of work has introduced powerful, general purpose algorithms that ensure a property called post hoc generalization (Cummings et al., COLT’16), which says that no person when given the output of the algorithm should be able to find any statistic for which the data differs significantly from the population it came from. In this work we show several limitations on the power of algorithms satisfying post hoc generalization. First, we show a tight lower bound on the error of any algorithm that satisfies post hoc generalization and answers adaptively chosen statistical queries, showing a strong barrier to progress in post selection data analysis. Second, we show that post hoc generalization is not closed under composition, despite many examples of such algorithms exhibiting strong composition properties. 1 Introduction Consider a dataset X consisting of n independent samples from some unknown population P. How can we ensure that the conclusions drawn from X generalize to the population P? Despite decades of research in statistics and machine learning on methods for ensuring generalization, there is an increased recognition that many scientific findings do not generalize, with some even declaring this to be a “statistical crisis in science” [14].
    [Show full text]
  • Individuals and Privacy in the Eye of Data Analysis
    Individuals and Privacy in the Eye of Data Analysis Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of “DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY” by Uri Stemmer Submitted to the Senate of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev October 2016 Beer-Sheva This work was carried out under the supervision of Prof. Amos Beimel and Prof. Kobbi Nissim In the Department of Computer Science Faculty of Natural Sciences Acknowledgments I could not have asked for better advisors. I will be forever grateful for their close guidance, their constant encouragement, and the warm shelter they provided. Without them, this thesis could have never begun. I have been fortunate to work with Raef Bassily, Amos Beimel, Mark Bun, Kobbi Nissim, Adam Smith, Thomas Steinke, Jonathan Ullman, and Salil Vadhan. I enjoyed working with them all, and I thank them for everything they have taught me. iii Contents Acknowledgments . iii Contents . iv List of Figures . vi Abstract . vii 1 Introduction1 1.1 Differential Privacy . .2 1.2 The Sample Complexity of Private Learning . .3 1.3 Our Contributions . .5 1.4 Additional Contributions . 10 2 Related Literature 15 2.1 The Computational Price of Differential Privacy . 15 2.2 Interactive Query Release . 18 2.3 Answering Adaptively Chosen Statistical Queries . 19 2.4 Other Related Work . 21 3 Background and Preliminaries 22 3.1 Differential privacy . 22 3.2 Preliminaries from Learning Theory . 24 3.3 Generalization Bounds for Points and Thresholds . 29 3.4 Private Learning . 30 3.5 Basic Differentially Private Mechanisms . 31 3.6 Concentration Bounds . 33 4 The Generalization Properties of Differential Privacy 34 4.1 Main Results .
    [Show full text]
  • Prahladh Harsha
    Prahladh Harsha Toyota Technological Institute, Chicago phone : +1-773-834-2549 University Press Building fax : +1-773-834-9881 1427 East 60th Street, Second Floor Chicago, IL 60637 email : [email protected] http://ttic.uchicago.edu/∼prahladh Research Interests Computational Complexity, Probabilistically Checkable Proofs (PCPs), Information Theory, Prop- erty Testing, Proof Complexity, Communication Complexity. Education • Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2004 Research Advisor : Professor Madhu Sudan PhD Thesis: Robust PCPs of Proximity and Shorter PCPs • Master of Science (SM) Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2000 • Bachelor of Technology (BTech) Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, 1998 Work Experience • Toyota Technological Institute, Chicago September 2004 – Present Research Assistant Professor • Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa February 2007 – May 2007 Visiting Scientist • Microsoft Research, Silicon Valley January 2005 – September 2005 Postdoctoral Researcher Honours and Awards • Summer Research Fellow 1997, Jawaharlal Nehru Center for Advanced Scientific Research, Ban- galore. • Rajiv Gandhi Science Talent Research Fellow 1997, Jawaharlal Nehru Center for Advanced Scien- tific Research, Bangalore. • Award Winner in the Indian National Mathematical Olympiad (INMO) 1993, National Board of Higher Mathematics (NBHM). • National Board of Higher Mathematics (NBHM) Nurture Program award 1995-1998. The Nurture program 1995-1998, coordinated by Prof. Alladi Sitaram, Indian Statistical Institute, Bangalore involves various topics in higher mathematics. 1 • Ranked 7th in the All India Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) for admission into the Indian Institutes of Technology (among the 100,000 candidates who appeared for the examination). • Papers invited to special issues – “Robust PCPs of Proximity, Shorter PCPs, and Applications to Coding” (with Eli Ben- Sasson, Oded Goldreich, Madhu Sudan, and Salil Vadhan).
    [Show full text]
  • Privacy Loss in Apple's Implementation of Differential
    Privacy Loss in Apple’s Implementation of Differential Privacy on MacOS 10.12 Jun Tang Aleksandra Korolova Xiaolong Bai University of Southern California University of Southern California Tsinghua University [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Xueqiang Wang Xiaofeng Wang Indiana University Indiana University [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION In June 2016, Apple made a bold announcement that it will deploy Differential privacy [7] has been widely recognized as the lead- local differential privacy for some of their user data collection in ing statistical data privacy definition by the academic commu- order to ensure privacy of user data, even from Apple [21, 23]. nity [6, 11]. Thus, as one of the first large-scale commercial de- The details of Apple’s approach remained sparse. Although several ployments of differential privacy (preceded only by Google’s RAP- patents [17–19] have since appeared hinting at the algorithms that POR [10]), Apple’s deployment is of significant interest to privacy may be used to achieve differential privacy, they did not include theoreticians and practitioners alike. Furthermore, since Apple may a precise explanation of the approach taken to privacy parameter be perceived as competing on privacy with other consumer com- choice. Such choice and the overall approach to privacy budget use panies, understanding the actual privacy protections afforded by and management are key questions for understanding the privacy the deployment of differential privacy in its desktop and mobile protections provided by any deployment of differential privacy. OSes may be of interest to consumers and consumer advocate In this work, through a combination of experiments, static and groups [16].
    [Show full text]
  • Calibrating Noise to Sensitivity in Private Data Analysis
    Calibrating Noise to Sensitivity in Private Data Analysis Cynthia Dwork1, Frank McSherry1, Kobbi Nissim2, and Adam Smith3? 1 Microsoft Research, Silicon Valley. {dwork,mcsherry}@microsoft.com 2 Ben-Gurion University. [email protected] 3 Weizmann Institute of Science. [email protected] Abstract. We continue a line of research initiated in [10, 11] on privacy- preserving statistical databases. Consider a trusted server that holds a database of sensitive information. Given a query function f mapping databases to reals, the so-called true answer is the result of applying f to the database. To protect privacy, the true answer is perturbed by the addition of random noise generated according to a carefully chosen distribution, and this response, the true answer plus noise, is returned to the user. Previous work focused on the case of noisy sums, in which f = P i g(xi), where xi denotes the ith row of the database and g maps database rows to [0, 1]. We extend the study to general functions f, proving that privacy can be preserved by calibrating the standard devi- ation of the noise according to the sensitivity of the function f. Roughly speaking, this is the amount that any single argument to f can change its output. The new analysis shows that for several particular applications substantially less noise is needed than was previously understood to be the case. The first step is a very clean characterization of privacy in terms of indistinguishability of transcripts. Additionally, we obtain separation re- sults showing the increased value of interactive sanitization mechanisms over non-interactive.
    [Show full text]
  • Garbled Protocols and Two-Round MPC from Bilinear Maps
    58th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science Garbled Protocols and Two-Round MPC from Bilinear Maps Sanjam Garg Akshayaram Srinivasan Dept. of Computer Science Dept. of Computer Science University of California, Berkeley University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, USA Berkeley, USA Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Abstract—In this paper, we initiate the study of garbled (OT) protocol [57], [2], [51], [40] gives an easy solution to protocols — a generalization of Yao’s garbled circuits construc- the problem of (semi-honest) two-round secure computation tion to distributed protocols. More specifically, in a garbled in the two-party setting. However, the same problem for protocol construction, each party can independently generate a garbled protocol component along with pairs of input the multiparty setting turns out to be much harder. Beaver, labels. Additionally, it generates an encoding of its input. The Micali and Rogaway [7] show that garbled circuits can be evaluation procedure takes as input the set of all garbled used to realize a constant round multi-party computation protocol components and the labels corresponding to the input protocol. However, unlike the two-party case, this protocol encodings of all parties and outputs the entire transcript of the is not two rounds. distributed protocol. We provide constructions for garbling arbitrary protocols A. Garbled Protocols based on standard computational assumptions on bilinear maps (in the common random string model). Next, using In this paper, we introduce a generalization of Yao’s garbled protocols we obtain a general compiler that compresses construction from circuits to distributed protocols. We next any arbitrary round multiparty secure computation protocol elaborate on (i) what it means to garble a protocol, (ii) why into a two-round UC secure protocol.
    [Show full text]