Closed kaih70 closed 3 years ago
There does seem to be an issue with the total communication. The semi-honest protocol is asymmetric but I agree that doesn't account for all the discrepancy. Maybe look into the communication wrapper (particularly for parties 1, 2). It might also have to do with multi-threaded communication in some parts of the code.
About the time, the code is not well optimized so the CPU time is quite high when running it over Tiny ImageNet sizes. Is there a reason you suspected a lower number?
About AlexNet on CIFAR10, can you tell me what is the issue with the numbers?
Actually I am repeating experiments from CryptGPU https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.10949.pdf. I got similar numbers as Table IV except AlexNet Tiny ImageNet.
And in other experiments I found total communication and the sum of communication of parties were equal.
So CryptGPU's numbers for Falcon are lower than the actual numbers? I see a fine print in the caption of Table IV saying that Falcon numbers reported there are without batch norm layers (which would make sense why the numbers are lower).
About the communication, it is not clear why this is the case. It might be a bug that needs fixing.
I removed BN layers and got a lower number. Thank you!
I ran AlexNet on ImageNet in LAN. Here is what i got:
P0:
P1:
P2:
Firstly, the "Total communication" seems not equal to the sum of all parties communication.
Secondly, it was much more time consuming than I expected.
Btw, I also ran AlexNet on CIFAR10, it cost 77.6502 sec and total communication was 665.514MB (sent).
Any clue?