MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Privacy-Preserving Spatial Range Query for Encrypted 3D Object Data

2025· article· en· W4416233545 on OpenAlexaff
Zhuliang Jia, Mohammadmasoud Shabanijou, Suprio Ray, Rongxing Lu, Pulei Xiong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Data Security
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityResearch and Productivity CouncilUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersHORIZON EUROPE Health
KeywordsSearch engine indexingEncryptionSpatial analysisSpatial querySpatial databaseRobustness (evolution)Range query (database)Query optimizationOctreeData security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid expansion and wide-ranging uses of three-dimensional (3D) data have underscored the need for efficient and secure management strategies, particularly when data storage and computation tasks are outsourced to cloud-based services. To address the critical privacy concerns that arise from outsourcing sensitive spatial data, we propose a novel privacy-preserving spatial range query scheme specifically designed for encrypted 3D object data by utilizing the Symmetric-key Hidden Vector Encryption (SHVE) technique. Unlike conventional approaches that treat spatial objects as points, our scheme efficiently supports queries over detailed volumetric representations at various levels of detail (LoD). The proposed solution employs an Octree based spatial indexing mechanism combined with Gray code encoding, significantly enhancing spatial partitioning and query efficiency. Additionally, our scheme achieves fine-grained access control to support different LoD requirements. Our comprehensive security analysis and performance evaluations demonstrate the robustness and practicality of the proposed method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCryptography and Data SecurityFrench-language works237,207