MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2493714127 · doi:10.1109/icc.2016.7511323

Efficient privacy-preserving circular range search on outsourced spatial data

2016· article· en· W2493714127 on OpenAlexaff
Hao Ren, Hongwei Li, Hao Chen, Michael Y. Kpiebaareh, Lian Zhao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEncryptionComputer scienceRange query (database)Information privacySecurity tokenDatabaseOutsourcingSecurity analysisTree (set theory)Web search queryData miningInformation retrievalComputer securityWeb query classificationSearch engineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the growing popularity of outsourcing data and services to the cloud, performing queries on encrypted data becomes a promising technique. Searchable encryption (SE) allows encryption while still enabling search for a variety of data. However, most of the existing arts focus on rectangular range query on common database. Query on encrypted spatial database has not been well studied. Moreover, as a vital type of geometric query on spatial data, the circular range search (CRS) is widely utilized in Location-Based Services (LBSs) and computational geometry. A recently proposed CRS scheme achieved security and privacy requirements. However, it exhibits low performance in terms of encryption and search efficiency. In this paper, we propose an Efficient Privacy-preserving CRS scheme (EP-CRS) on outsourced spatial data. Specifically, our scheme achieves CRS by leveraging an R-tree based SE scheme and adding a trusted-third party (TTP) to system. Security analysis indicates that EP-CRS can preserve data and query privacy. In addition, we conduct real experiments and compare EP-CRS with the existing one to show that the proposal is more efficient in terms of data encryption, token generation and search.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207