Score:1

Question about round complexity of secure multiple party computation based on secret sharing

cn flag

I am reading Fast and Secure Three-party Computation: The Garbled Circuit Approach And in the introduction section it said that:

the round complexity of these protocols is proportional to the circuit-depth of the computation being performed

What does this exactly means? Why does Yao's garbled circuit does not have this kind of issue?Thanks in advance!

Score:1
us flag

When running a secret-sharing based MPC protocol, the parties must interact for each multiplication gate of the circuit. If two multiplication gates are independent of one another, then we can combine the communication for both gates into a single message. But if one multiplication gate feeds into a second multiplication gate then the communication for those gates must come in separate, sequential rounds. So the total number of communication rounds has to be at least the multiplicative depth of the circuit (multiplicative depth = maximum number of multiplication gates along any path from input wire to output wire).

In a garbled circuit MPC protocol, one party (garbler) prepares some cryptographic information for every gate in the circuit and sends it to the other party (evaluator) in one big message. The evaluator can process this information gate by gate, but it doesn't require any interaction to process it. The garbler has already prepared all the information the evaluator will ever need, for the entire circuit. So no matter how deep the circuit is, the garbler just sends a single message.

I don't know if I can answer the question of "why" these protocols are like this. It's just the way these protocols are.

mangohost

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.