You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
and find the output intersection is changeable and always less than the expected intersection. We thought there must be some problems in the function party3(), but after we checked the code and the paper, we haven't find the problems yet. The only thing we find is that the recvPayLoads in secret sharing part is changeable.
2. In the function tparties(), we found that the leader doesn't seem to join the secret sharing part, which is inconsistent with the algorithm told in the paper. Is there any reasons for this inconsistency?
3. When we tried to test the function aug_parties with my own inputs, we found that the element that should be in the intersection will not be counted to the output intersection if its index is not same in all the inputs. For example, if P1 has input (1, 2, 3), P2 has input (1, 3, 4), P3 has input (1, 3, 5), then only 1 will be counted in the intersection, which is not correct. And in the paper, we don't understand what the ind means in the augmented semi-honest PSI model. The index of the element? Or the element itself?
Thanks for any reply!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi, we're very interested in this amazing work and trying to dive into this project and the paper. But we met some questions:
and find the output intersection is changeable and always less than the expected intersection. We thought there must be some problems in the function
party3()
, but after we checked the code and the paper, we haven't find the problems yet. The only thing we find is that therecvPayLoads
in secret sharing part is changeable.2. In the function
tparties()
, we found that the leader doesn't seem to join the secret sharing part, which is inconsistent with the algorithm told in the paper. Is there any reasons for this inconsistency?3. When we tried to test the function
aug_parties
with my own inputs, we found that the element that should be in the intersection will not be counted to the output intersection if its index is not same in all the inputs. For example, if P1 has input (1, 2, 3), P2 has input (1, 3, 4), P3 has input (1, 3, 5), then only 1 will be counted in the intersection, which is not correct. And in the paper, we don't understand what the ind means in the augmented semi-honest PSI model. The index of the element? Or the element itself?Thanks for any reply!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: