MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392158582 · doi:10.1109/tit.2024.3370311

Privacy-Preserving Average Consensus: Fundamental Analysis and a Generic Framework Design

2024· article· en· W4392158582 on OpenAlexaff
Feng Ye, Xianghui Cao, Mo–Yuen Chow, Lin Cai

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Information Theory · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersShenzhen Science and Technology Innovation ProgramNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceInformation privacyTheoretical computer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Average consensus is a key component of multi-agent systems coordination, while data privacy becomes a serious concern. Through the information exchange process, the initial state of an agent may be disclosed to its neighbors. The existing privacy-preserving research mainly addressed the situation of single-neighbor eavesdropping and infinite-time consensus, and they cannot deal with the cases of multi-neighbors eavesdropping and collusion inference attack or ensuring finite-time consensus. In this paper, we prove that it is impossible to preserve a node’s data privacy if all of its neighbors collusively infer the data. Otherwise, we propose a privacy-preserving framework to support conventional average consensus, push-sum consensus, and finite-time average consensus, which integrates multiplying random variables, finite-time error compensation, and updating rule jump. In this paper, each agent exchanges data with its neighbors by multiplying a random variable to its real-time state at each iteration. To eliminate errors caused by the random multiplier, a finite-time error compensation term and updating rule jump are designed, which ensure the accuracy of consensus. We prove that the proposed framework can converge and preserve privacy facing collusion inference attacks in both finite-time and infinite-time consensus, while traditional adding-noise-based methods cannot solve the finite-time case. We also derive the analytical expressions of the maximum privacy disclosure probability for the initial state of each agent, and present the impact of multiplying random variables. Extensive case studies demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed framework.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0050.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Information TheorySame topicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataFrench-language works237,207