Paper detail

Secure Evaluation of Knowledge Graph Merging Gain

Finding out the differences and commonalities between the knowledge of two parties is an important task. Such a comparison becomes necessary, when one party wants to determine how much it is worth to acquire the knowledge of the second party, or similarly when two parties try to determine, whether a collaboration could be beneficial. When these two parties cannot trust each other (for example, due to them being competitors) performing such a comparison is challenging as neither of them would be willing to share any of their assets. This paper addresses this problem for knowledge graphs, without a need for non-disclosure agreements nor a third party during the protocol. During the protocol, the intersection between the two knowledge graphs is determined in a privacy preserving fashion. This is followed by the computation of various metrics, which give an indication of the potential gain from obtaining the other parties knowledge graph, while still keeping the actual knowledge graph contents secret. The protocol makes use of blind signatures and (counting) Bloom filters to reduce the amount of leaked information. Finally, the party who wants to obtain the other's knowledge graph can get a part of such in a way that neither party is able to know beforehand which parts of the graph are obtained (i.e., they cannot choose to only get or share the good parts). After inspection of the quality of this part, the Buyer can decide to proceed with the transaction. The analysis of the protocol indicates that the developed protocol is secure against malicious participants. Further experimental analysis shows that the resource consumption scales linear with the number of statements in the knowledge graph.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.