Efficient and Privacy-Preserving Subgraph Matching Queries in Graph Federation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graph technology has been attracting interest due to its ability in modeling complex network and real-world relationships in various applications. Subgraph matching queries are useful tools that can be used to extract structural insights from graph dataset. As the accuracy of subgraph matching queries increases with graph size, it is natural to consider providing subgraph matching query services over a graph federation, which can form a larger graph by combining graphs from multiple data owners. However, the downside combining data is that it may provoke privacy concerns related to the graph datasets and user queries. Although many schemes have been proposed for privacy-preserving subgraph matching queries, they either cannot be extended to graph federation scenarios or do not consider query privacy. Aiming at this challenge, in this paper we construct an efficient and privacy-preserving subgraph matching query scheme in graph federation with two data owners. In the proposed scheme, the two data owners jointly compute the neighboring signatures of all vertices without disclosing their graph datasets to each other. Upon receiving a subgraph matching query, the data owners together respond with a subgraph which includes all subgraphs matching the pattern in the combined graph. Security analysis shows that our proposed scheme can well preserve data and query privacy. Extensive experiments further demonstrate that the scheme is efficient in terms of computation and communication.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".