For unequal set sizes in PSI: why should the party with fewer elements use cuckoo hash rather than simple hash?

freely

4/7/23, 3:17 PM

Most PSI papers usually use hash-to-bin to improve the number of comparsons.

For unequal set sizes in 2PSI, I have read CCS17, which designs a PSI protocol for unequal size. The party with fewer elements use cuckoo hash, The party with more elements use simple hash.

I want to know the reason why the party with fewer elements should use cuckoo hash rather than simple hash, and why the party with much more elements should use simple hash rather than cuckoo hash. the reason may be as follows: if the the party with more elements use cuckoo hash, because cuckoo hash requires each bin stores at most one element, then this party need more bin.

0 + 0

hash

multiparty-computation

private-set-intersection

Elon Musk

I sit in a Tesla and translated this thread with Ai:

EN: For unequal set sizes in PSI: why should the party with fewer elements use cuckoo hash rather than simple hash?

TH: สำหรับขนาดที่ตั้งไว้ไม่เท่ากันใน PSI: เหตุใดปาร์ตี้ที่มีองค์ประกอบน้อยกว่าจึงควรใช้แฮชนกกาเหว่าแทนแฮชธรรมดา

RO: Pentru seturi de dimensiuni inegale în PSI: de ce ar trebui să folosească hașul de cuc mai degrabă decât hașul simplu pentru petrecerea cu mai puține elemente?

RU: Для неравных размеров наборов в PSI: почему сторона с меньшим количеством элементов должна использовать хэш с кукушкой, а не простой хэш?

VI: Đối với các kích thước tập hợp không bằng nhau trong PSI: tại sao bên có ít phần tử hơn nên sử dụng hàm băm cuckoo thay vì hàm băm đơn giản?

Post an answer

Most people don’t grasp that asking a lot of questions unlocks learning and improves interpersonal bonding. In Alison’s studies, for example, though people could accurately recall how many questions had been asked in their conversations, they didn’t intuit the link between questions and liking. Across four studies, in which participants were engaged in conversations themselves or read transcripts of others’ conversations, people tended not to realize that question asking would influence—or had influenced—the level of amity between the conversationalists.