MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408325434 · doi:10.1109/tifs.2025.3550064

COKV: Key-Value Data Collection With Condensed Local Differential Privacy

2025· article· en· W4408325434 on OpenAlexaff
Junpeng Zhang, Hui Zhu, Jiaqi Zhao, Rongxing Lu, Yandong Zheng, Jiezhen Tang, Hui Li

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersChina Postdoctoral Science FoundationNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDifferential privacyComputer scienceKey (lock)Data collectionInformation privacyValue (mathematics)Computer securityData miningStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Local differential privacy (LDP) provides lightweight and provable privacy protection and has wide applications in private data collection. Key-value data, as a popular NoSQL structure, requires simultaneous frequency and mean estimations of each key, which poses a challenge to traditional LDP-based collection methods. Despite many schemes proposed for the privacy protection of key-value data, they inadequately solve the condensed perturbation for keys and the advanced combination of privacy budgets, leading to suboptimal estimation accuracy. To address this issue, we propose an efficient key-value collection scheme (COKV) with tight privacy budget composition. In our scheme, we first design a padding and sampling protocol for key-value data to avoid privacy budget splitting. Second, to enhance the utility of key perturbation, we design a key perturbation primitive and optimize the perturbation range to improve computational efficiency. After that, we propose a key-value association perturbation algorithm whose value perturbation strategy guarantees the output expectation equals the original value. Finally, we demonstrate that through a tight privacy budget composition, COKV can provide higher data utility under the same privacy level. Theoretical analysis shows that COKV possesses lower frequency and mean estimations variance. Extensive experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets also indicate that COKV outperforms the current state-of-the-art methods for secure key-value data collection.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

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 communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0040.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and SecuritySame topicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataFrench-language works237,207