MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PAEEA: Privacy-Preserving Online Ad Exchange with Efficient Auction for Smart Advertising

2023· article· en· W4387872574 on OpenAlexaff
Brennan Mosher, Jianbing Ni

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDisplay advertisingMatching (statistics)Online advertisingPrivate information retrievalThe InternetComputer securityWorld Wide WebAdvertisingInternet privacyMathematicsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concern of privacy leakage in online smart advertising is continuously serious for Internet users, and the advertising models are increasingly complex to improve the accuracy of ad impression, which make current privacy-preserving adverting protocols that are based on either profile matching or auction impractical. In this paper, we propose a new privacy-preserving ad exchange protocol (PAEEA) by integrating private set interaction and efficient auction. The distinguished feature of PAEEA is that it enables privacy-preserving matching between the profiles of users and the keywords of ads and private auction based on the bids of advertisers in an efficient way. The bid prices are embedded into ad keywords to produce a private vector, which is matched with the vector of user profiles for ad selection. User profiles, ad keywords, and bid prices are protected to preserve the privacy of both internet users and advertisers. Moreover, the system model of PAEEA follows the model of modern smart advertising, so that PAEEA is applicable to current advertising systems, such as Google Ads. Finally, the performance of PAEEA is demonstrated through extensive experiments that it is computationally efficient and practical to be implemented on smart advertising systems.<sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sup><sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sup>A part of the study has been published in Brennan Mosher's Master thesis. The authors own the copyright to the thesis as a whole and it is allowed to republish according to Intellectual Property Guidelines at Queen's University.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.239 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-votingFrench-language works237,207