Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 67 references

Policy-Driven AI in Dataspaces: Taxonomy, Explainability, and Pathways for Compliant Innovation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a taxonomy that classifies privacy-preserving and policy-aware AI techniques in dataspaces by privacy level, performance degradation, and compliance complexity.

desk verdict A passable survey of PETs and EU policy in dataspaces, but the 'novel taxonomy' is an unrubricized table with unsupported ratings and misfiled citations—reject as a research contribution. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20014 v2 pith:L5ZFRTI2 submitted 2025-07-26 cs.CR cs.AI

Joydeep Chandra , Satyam Kumar Navneet This is my paper
classification cs.CRcs.AI
keywords dataspacesprivacy-preservingAIpolicy-awarefederatedlearningdifferentialprivacyhomomorphicencryptiontrustedexecutionenvironmentsexplainable
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This survey argues that AI systems operating in dataspaces, the decentralized data-sharing infrastructures that let organizations pool data while keeping control, need a structured way to weigh privacy protection, performance, and regulatory compliance. Its central contribution is a novel taxonomy that places the main privacy-preserving techniques, Federated Learning, Differential Privacy, Trusted Execution Environments, Homomorphic Encryption, and Secure Multi-Party Computation, side by side on three axes: privacy level, performance degradation, and compliance complexity. The paper also identifies open problems that stand in the way of practical deployment, including the lack of standardized privacy-performance KPIs, the difficulty of explaining models in federated settings, and the gap between legal requirements and machine-readable policies. If the taxonomy succeeds as a map, practitioners can more systematically select, combine, and benchmark methods, and regulators gain a common vocabulary for discussing trade-offs. The work is positioned as groundwork for trustworthy, efficient, and compliant AI in dataspaces.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing artifact is the taxonomy in Table IV, which rates each technique on three qualitative levels, low, medium, or high, for privacy level, performance degradation, and compliance complexity. It is supported by Table III, which contrasts static privacy budgets with adaptive non-reinforcement-learning strategies, and by a proposed layered framework covering policy specification, enforcement, trust and verification, adaptive governance, and interoperability. The taxonomy carries the argument by converting a scattered literature into one comparative structure, and the paper's later research-gap analysis is organized around the dimensions the taxonomy makes salient.

What would settle it

Measuring the actual latency, throughput, and overhead of the five techniques in a common federated dataspace testbed and checking whether the relative ordering matches Table IV's ratings would settle whether the taxonomy's categorical assignments hold; if implementations vary enough that, say, homomorphic encryption sometimes outperforms a trusted execution environment on latency, the global ratings would fail as a predictive map.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the scattered literature on privacy-preserving and policy-aware AI in dataspaces can be organized into a single comparative taxonomy, and that the three dimensions of privacy level, performance degradation, and compliance complexity make the trade-offs explicit enough to guide design. The paper argues that no single technique is universally optimal: Federated Learning keeps raw data local but leaks information through model updates, Differential Privacy provides provable guarantees at the cost of model utility, Trusted Execution Environments are efficient but depend on hardware trust assumptions, and Homomorphic Encryption and Secure Multi-Party Computation give strong privacy at high computational or communication cost. It further claims that compliance can be embedded through constraint-based optimization, rule-based engines, policy injection, and neurosymbolic or explainable approaches, and that semantic policy enforcement requires connecting legal standards like GDPR and the EU AI Act to machine-readable policy languages. The taxonomy is presented as the decision-support artifact that ties these observations together.

Load-bearing premise

The taxonomy's qualitative ratings, for example the assignment of high privacy, high performance degradation, and high compliance complexity to homomorphic encryption, are presented without a stated methodology, empirical measurements, or a comparison against prior taxonomies, so the framework depends on those ratings being accurate and reproducible.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Practitioners can use the taxonomy as a checklist that maps each privacy technique to its expected privacy level, performance hit, and compliance burden before committing to a design.
  • The paper argues for hybrid, multi-layer architectures, such as combining Federated Learning with Differential Privacy or Homomorphic Encryption with Secure Multi-Party Computation, rather than relying on any single technique.
  • The absence of standardized privacy-performance KPIs is identified as a blocker, implying that benchmarking standards are a prerequisite for fair system comparison in dataspaces.
  • Compliance is framed as a design-time activity, through policy injection and constraint-based optimization, rather than a post-hoc audit, so future systems should embed policies throughout the AI lifecycle.
  • The proposed framework places explainability and formal verification at the center of automated compliance validation for federated and distributed settings.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the taxonomy's qualitative ratings were converted into quantitative benchmarks across real implementations, the three-dimensional ordering might not stay stable, because the categorical levels probably mask wide variance within each technique.
  • The paper's emphasis on non-reinforcement-learning adaptive strategies points to a testable extension: designing context-driven policy-selection rules, for example risk-score thresholds, and evaluating them head-to-head against reinforcement-learning-based privacy controllers.
  • The explainability-versus-privacy tension in federated learning suggests that audit trails may require privacy-preserving explanation mechanisms, which the paper leaves as an open direction rather than a defined solution.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a survey of privacy-preserving and policy-aware AI techniques in dataspaces. It covers Federated Learning, Differential Privacy, Trusted Execution Environments, Homomorphic Encryption, and Secure Multi-Party Computation, along with regulatory frameworks (GDPR, EU AI Act, Data Governance Act, ODRL, IDS RAM) and trade-off strategies. The abstract and Section I claim as the main contribution a 'novel taxonomy' (Table IV) that classifies ten techniques by privacy level, performance degradation, and compliance complexity, intended to guide practitioners and researchers. The paper also discusses performance metrics, research gaps, and future directions tied to GAIA-X, IDS, and Eclipse EDC.

Significance. A rigorously derived taxonomy of privacy-preserving techniques for dataspaces would be genuinely useful to practitioners and regulators, and the manuscript's breadth is a strength: it connects technical PETs to European legal instruments, highlights the absence of standardized benchmarks, and raises relevant questions about explainability in federated settings. The paper also explicitly acknowledges limitations of current AI benchmarking (Section VI.B). However, the central contribution is currently unsupported. The Table IV ratings are qualitative judgments without a defined rubric, empirical backing, or comparison with prior taxonomies, and several citations do not support the specific claims. As it stands, the paper is a compilation of known characterizations rather than a validated new framework, and its value is limited by the absence of a reproducible methodology.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section VIII (Table IV)] The central claim of a novel taxonomy is unsupported. The Low/Medium/High scales for privacy level, performance degradation, and compliance complexity are never defined, no mapping procedure is given, and no validation (expert ratings, inter-rater reliability, or comparison with existing taxonomies in [3], [37], [61]) is reported. A third party cannot reconstruct or reproduce the ratings from the cited material; the taxonomy is therefore a restatement of the authors' qualitative opinions rather than a reproducible scientific contribution.
  2. [Section III.B and Table IV] Several load-bearing citations do not contain the claimed information. In Section III.B, constraint-based optimization with penalties in the loss function is attributed to [25] (a simulation-based inference paper), meta-gradient penalty adjustment to [26] (an LLM alignment paper), and conversational AI constraints to [28] (a data curation paper). In Table IV, FL's 'Compliance Complexity: Medium' cites [16], a breast-cancer federated learning study with no compliance-complexity discussion, and XAI's 'Privacy Level: Low' cites [45], a general AI security framework that does not rate XAI's privacy. These mismatches mean the taxonomy's evidence base is unreliable.
  3. [Section VIII (novelty claim)] The paper does not compare its taxonomy with existing privacy-preserving ML taxonomies. Prior surveys [3], [37], [61] already classify PETs; the manuscript never states what its categories add, how they differ, or which existing classifications it refines. Without such a differential analysis, the 'novel' label is untested and the claimed contribution cannot be evaluated.
  4. [Sections V-VI and Table II] The performance-impact ratings (Table II and Table IV) are presented as ordinal judgments without empirical measurements. Section VI.B itself notes the lack of standardized benchmarking, yet the paper does not supply even illustrative quantitative results (e.g., latency, throughput, accuracy degradation) to anchor the High/Medium/Low distinctions. The ratings are thus not falsifiable and cannot be audited.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous typos and grammatical errors ('diverese', 'informnation', 'transanctions', 'enahance', 'adhereing', 'straight-up called') and shifts between past and present tense for current claims; a careful language edit is needed.
  2. [Section VIII] The structure is confusing: Section VIII contains subsections A ('AI Explainability for Compliance in Federated Data Ecosystems') and B ('Regulatory Gaps and Semantic Policy Enforcement') that are not about the taxonomy, and Table IV is presented before and largely independent of these subsections. Consider moving these subsections or renaming Section VIII.
  3. [References] Reference [46] is the authors' own paper on self-healing databases, which is unrelated to dataspaces and is not integrated into the text; it should be removed unless a substantive connection is established.
  4. [Section III.A] The claim that the EU AI Act 'kicked off in August 2024 and fully rolled out by August 2026' is stated informally and the source [52] is a law journal article; please verify the dates and cite the official EU materials.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Table IV is a qualitative literature synthesis, not a derivation from its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a 'novel taxonomy' (Abstract; Section VIII; Table IV) that classifies known privacy-preserving and policy-aware AI techniques on qualitative Low/Medium/High scales. This is a synthesis/classification, not a derivation: the ratings are not obtained from an equation, a fitted parameter, or a prediction rule. The cited sources are external literature, and the ratings restate or summarize properties reported there (e.g., FHE computational cost in [10], [11]). Even if some citations are inaccurate or the rating rubric is under-specified, that is an evidence/rigor defect rather than circularity: the output does not reduce to the input by construction, because the paper does not define its categories in terms of the table entries or vice versa. The only self-reference in the bibliography ([46]) is not cited in the body and plays no role in the taxonomy, so there is no load-bearing self-citation. The lack of a formal rating methodology and the questionable citation-to-row matches in Table IV should be treated as correctness/evidence concerns, not circularity. Under the circularity-specific criteria, no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central contribution is a taxonomy; its novel content reduces to categorical labels assigned by the authors to existing techniques, with no independent evidence. The paper contributes no formal derivation, dataset, or quantitative model.

assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper The qualitative ratings in Table IV (privacy level, performance degradation, compliance complexity) are accurate and mutually comparable.
    The taxonomy is presented without a stated evaluation method; the ratings appear to be chosen by the authors based on a loose reading of citations.
  • domain assumption The cited references support the specific claims they are attached to, e.g., [15] supports the Haar wavelet DP method.
    Many citations appear mismatched or irrelevant (e.g., [25] on simulation-based inference is cited for constraint-based optimization), so the survey's reliability depends on a questionable citation mapping.
  • ad hoc to paper A taxonomy based on three ordinal categories (privacy, performance, compliance) is sufficient to capture the trade-offs in dataspaces.
    The paper offers no justification for the choice of axes or for reducing complex trade-offs to three categorical levels.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Policy-Driven AI in Dataspaces: Taxonomy, Explainability, and Pathways for Compliant Innovation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L5ZFRTI2

@misc{pith2026250720014,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Policy-Driven AI in Dataspaces: Taxonomy, Explainability, and Pathways for Compliant Innovation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L5ZFRTI2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20014}
}
read the original abstract

As AI-driven dataspaces become integral to data sharing and collaborative analytics, ensuring privacy, performance, and policy compliance presents significant challenges. This paper provides a comprehensive review of privacy-preserving and policy-aware AI techniques, including Federated Learning, Differential Privacy, Trusted Execution Environments, Homomorphic Encryption, and Secure Multi-Party Computation, alongside strategies for aligning AI with regulatory frameworks such as GDPR and the EU AI Act. We propose a novel taxonomy to classify these techniques based on privacy levels, performance impacts, and compliance complexity, offering a clear framework for practitioners and researchers to navigate trade-offs. Key performance metrics -- latency, throughput, cost overhead, model utility, fairness, and explainability -- are analyzed to highlight the multi-dimensional optimization required in dataspaces. The paper identifies critical research gaps, including the lack of standardized privacy-performance KPIs, challenges in explainable AI for federated ecosystems, and semantic policy enforcement amidst regulatory fragmentation. Future directions are outlined, proposing a conceptual framework for policy-driven alignment, automated compliance validation, standardized benchmarking, and integration with European initiatives like GAIA-X, IDS, and Eclipse EDC. By synthesizing technical, ethical, and regulatory perspectives, this work lays the groundwork for developing trustworthy, efficient, and compliant AI systems in dataspaces, fostering innovation in secure and responsible data-driven ecosystems.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [46]

    Joydeep Chandra and Prabal Manhas. (2025). Efficient and Scalable Self-Healing Databases Using Meta-Learning and Dependency-Driven Recovery. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.13757. arXiv:2507.13757 [cs.DB]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [3]

    Alfredo Cuzzocrea and Selim Soufargi. (2025). Privacy- preserving multidimensional big data analytics models, methods and techniques: A comprehensive survey. Expert Systems with Applications, 270, 126387. https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0957417425000090. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.eswa.2025.126387

    work page arXiv 2025

  3. [37]

    Harry Chandra Tanuwidjaja, Rakyong Choi, Seunggeun Baek, and Kwangjo Kim. (2020). Privacy-Preserving Deep Learning on Machine Learning as a Service—a Comprehensive Survey. IEEE Access , 8, 167425-167447. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020. 3023084

    doi:10.1109/access.2020 2020

  4. [61]

    Dhurgham Hassan Mahlool and Mohammed Hamzah Abed. (2022). A Comprehensive Survey on Federated Learning: Concept and Applications. https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.09384. arXiv:2201.09384 [cs.CV]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  5. [25]

    Marvin Schmitt, Valentin Pratz, Ullrich K ¨othe, Paul-Christian B¨urkner, and Stefan T Radev. (2024). Consistency Models for Scalable and Fast Simulation-Based Inference. https://arxiv.org/ abs/2312.05440. arXiv:2312.05440 [cs.LG]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [26]

    Rush, and Thomas Wolf

    Lewis Tunstall, Edward Beeching, Nathan Lambert, Nazneen Rajani, Kashif Rasul, Younes Belkada, Shengyi Huang, Le- andro von Werra, Cl ´ementine Fourrier, Nathan Habib, Nathan Sarrazin, Omar Sanseviero, Alexander M. Rush, and Thomas Wolf. (2023). Zephyr: Direct Distillation of LM Alignment. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.16944. arXiv:2310.16944 [cs.LG]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [28]

    Chunting Zhou, Pengfei Liu, Puxin Xu, Srini Iyer, Jiao Sun, Yuning Mao, Xuezhe Ma, Avia Efrat, Ping Yu, Lili Yu, Susan Zhang, Gargi Ghosh, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. (2023). LIMA: Less Is More for Alignment. https://arxiv. org/abs/2305.11206. arXiv:2305.11206 [cs.CL]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [16]

    Amritanjali and Ragav Gupta. (2025). Federated Learning for Privacy Preserving Intelligent Healthcare Application to Breast Cancer Detection. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Distributed Computing and Networking (ICDCN ’25), 302–306. https://doi.org/10.1145/3700838.3703679. doi: 10.1145/3700838.3703679

    work page arXiv 2025

  9. [45]

    William Villegas-Ch and Joselin Garc ´ıa-Ortiz. (2023). To- ward a Comprehensive Framework for Ensuring Security and Privacy in Artificial Intelligence. Electronics, 12(18), 3786. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/12/18/3786. doi: 10.3390/ electronics12183786

    work page 2023

Show all 67 references
  1. [1]

    Michael Franklin, Alon Halevy, and David Maier. (2005). From databases to dataspaces: a new abstraction for information management. SIGMOD Rec. , 34(4), 27–33. https://doi.org/10. 1145/1107499.1107502. doi: 10.1145/1107499.1107502

    2005

  2. [2]

    Uzma Nawaz, Mufti Anees-ur-Rahaman, and Zubair Saeed. (2025). A review of neuro-symbolic AI integrating reasoning and learning for advanced cognitive systems. Intelligent Systems with Applications , 26, 200541. https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S26673053250006...

    2025

  3. [4]

    Michael Steinert and Marcel Altendeitering. (2024). Data Trustees: A Whitelisting Approach for Trusted Data Sharing. In Proceedings of the 4th Eclipse Security, AI, Architecture and Modelling Conference on Data Space (eSAAM ’24) . As- sociation for Computing Machinery, New Yor...

    2024

  4. [5]

    Lopes, Pedro Guimar ˜aes, Tiago F

    Pedro M. Lopes, Pedro Guimar ˜aes, Tiago F. Pereira, and Ricardo J. Machado. (2024). Gaia-X & Fiware: Implementation of a Federated Data Platform in Smart Cities. Procedia Com- puter Science, 239, 1506-1515. https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S1877050924015680....

    2024

  5. [6]

    Beliatis, and Mirko Presser

    Parwinder Singh, Michail J. Beliatis, and Mirko Presser. (2024). Enabling edge-driven Dataspace integration through convergence of distributed technologies. Internet of Things , 25, 101087. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S2542660524000295. doi: https://doi....

    2024 doi

  6. [7]

    Lopez-Ramos, Florian Leiser, Aditya Rastogi, Steven Hicks, Inga Str ¨umke, Vince I

    Luis M. Lopez-Ramos, Florian Leiser, Aditya Rastogi, Steven Hicks, Inga Str ¨umke, Vince I. Madai, Tobias Budig, Ali Sun- yaev, and Adam Hilbert. (2025). Interplay between Federated Learning and Explainable Artificial Intelligence: a Scoping Review. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411....

    2025 arXiv

  7. [8]

    Tobias Dam, Lukas Daniel Klausner, Sebastian Neumaier, and Torsten Priebe. (2024). A Survey of Dataspace Connector Imple- mentations. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.11282. arXiv:2309.11282 [cs.ET]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [9]

    Philipp Hacker, Felix Naumann, Tobias Friedrich, Stefan Grund- mann, Anja Lehmann, and Herbert Zech. (2022). AI Compliance – Challenges of Bridging Data Science and Law. J. Data and Information Quality , 14(3), Article 21, 4 pages. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3531532. doi: 10.114...

    2022 doi

  9. [10]

    Gamiz, C

    I. Gamiz, C. Regueiro, O. Lage, et al. (2025). Challenges and future research directions in secure multi-party computa- tion for resource-constrained devices and large-scale compu- tations. Int. J. Inf. Secur. , 24, 27. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10207-024-00939-4

    2025

  10. [11]

    Charles Gouert and Nektarios Georgios Tsoutsos. (2025). Data Privacy Made Easy: Enhancing Applications with Homomorphic Encryption. ACM Trans. Des. Autom. Electron. Syst. , 30(3), Article 35, 31 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3715877. doi: 10. 1145/3715877

    2025 doi

  11. [12]

    Hossein Sayadi, Mehrdad Aliasgari, Furkan Aydin, Seetal Potluri, Aydin Aysu, Jack Edmonds, and Sara Tehranipoor. (2022). Towards AI-Enabled Hardware Security: Challenges and Opportunities. In 2022 IEEE 28th International Symposium on On-Line Testing and Robust System Design (I...

    2022

  12. [13]

    Michael Veale and Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius. (2021). De- mystifying the Draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act. Computer Law Review International , 22(4), 97–112. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3896852

    2021

  13. [14]

    Nusrat Jahan, Ratun Rahman, and Michel Wang. (2025). Feder- ated Learning: A Survey on Privacy-Preserving Collaborative In- telligence. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.17703. arXiv:2504.17703 [cs.LG]

    2025

  14. [15]

    Huda Kadhim Tayyeh and Ahmed Sabah Ahmed AL-Jumaili. (2024). Balancing Privacy and Performance: A Differential Privacy Approach in Federated Learning. Computers, 13(11),

    2024

  15. [17]

    Cisco. (n.d.). Cisco Data Privacy Benchmark Study. https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/about/trust-center/ data-privacy-benchmark-study.html

  16. [18]

    Wasil, Tom Reed, Jack William Miller, and Peter Barnett

    Akash R. Wasil, Tom Reed, Jack William Miller, and Peter Barnett. (2024). Verification methods for international AI agreements. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.16074. arXiv:2408.16074 [cs.CY]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [19]

    Saleh Alabdulwahab, Young-Tak Kim, and Yunsik Son. (2024). Privacy-Preserving Synthetic Data Generation Method for IoT- Sensor Network IDS Using CTGAN. Sensors, 24(22), 7389. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/24/22/7389. doi: 10.3390/ s24227389

    2024

  18. [20]

    Brendan McMa- han, Ilya Mironov, Kunal Talwar, and Li Zhang

    Martin Abadi, Andy Chu, Ian Goodfellow, H. Brendan McMa- han, Ilya Mironov, Kunal Talwar, and Li Zhang. (2016). Deep Learning with Differential Privacy. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS’16) , 308–318. ACM. http://dx....

    2016

  19. [21]

    Mohamed Sabt, Mohammed Achemlal, and Abdelmadjid Bouabdallah. (2015). Trusted Execution Environment: What It is, and What It is Not. In 2015 IEEE Trustcom/BigDataSE/ISPA, 1, 57-64. doi: 10.1109/Trustcom.2015.357

    2015 doi

  20. [22]

    Hariharan Pappil Kothandapani. (2025). AI-Driven Regulatory Compliance: Transforming Financial Oversight through Large Language Models and Automation. https://figshare.com/articles/journal contribution/AI-Driven Regulatory Compliance Transforming Financial Oversight through La...

    2025

  21. [23]

    Lukas von Ditfurth and Gregor Lienemann. (2022). The Data Governance Act: – Promoting or Restricting Data Interme- diaries? Competition and Regulation in Network Industries , 23(4), 270-295. https://doi.org/10.1177/17835917221141324. doi: 10.1177/17835917221141324

    2022 doi

  22. [24]

    Bikram Pratim Bhuyan, Amar Ramdane-Cherif, Ravi Tomar, and T. P. Singh. (2024). Neuro-symbolic artificial intelli- gence: a survey. Neural Comput. Appl. , 36(21), 12809–12844. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-024-09960-z. doi: 10.1007/ s00521-024-09960-z

    2024 doi

  23. [27]

    Boris Otto, Steffen Lohmann, Sebastian Steinbuss, and Andreas Teuscher. (2018). IDS Reference Architecture Model Version 2.0

    2018

  24. [29]

    Brian Knott, Shobha Venkataraman, Awni Hannun, Shubho Sengupta, Mark Ibrahim, and Laurens van der Maaten. (2022). CrypTen: Secure Multi-Party Computation Meets Machine Learning. https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.00984. arXiv:2109.00984 [cs.LG]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [30]

    Tariq Bontekoe, Dimka Karastoyanova, and Fatih Turkmen. (2024). Verifiable Privacy-Preserving Computing. https://arxiv. org/abs/2309.08248. arXiv:2309.08248 [cs.CR]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [31]

    Shijie Wu, Ozan Irsoy, Steven Lu, Vadim Dabravolski, Mark Dredze, Sebastian Gehrmann, Prabhanjan Kambadur, David Rosenberg, and Gideon Mann. (2023). BloombergGPT: A Large Language Model for Finance. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.17564. arXiv:2303.17564 [cs.LG]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [32]

    Abushark, and Ahmed S

    Abdulmohsen Almalawi, Asif Irshad Khan, Fawaz Alsolami, Yoosef B. Abushark, and Ahmed S. Alfakeeh. (2023). Managing Security of Healthcare Data for a Modern Healthcare System. Sensors, 23(7), 3612. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/7/

    2023

  28. [33]

    Emanuel Rieder, Matthias Schmuck, and Alexandru Tugui. (2023). A Scientific Perspective on Using Artificial Intelligence in Sustainable Urban Development. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 7(1), 3. https://www.mdpi.com/2504-2289/7/1/3. doi: 10.3390/bdcc7010003

    2023 doi

  29. [34]

    Monique Ogburn, Claude Turner, and Pushkar Dahal. (2013). Homomorphic Encryption. Procedia Computer Science , 20, 502-509. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S1877050913011101. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013. 09.310

    2013 doi

  30. [35]

    Hao Yu and Yunyun Guo. (2023). Generative artificial in- telligence empowers educational reform: current status, is- sues, and prospects. Frontiers in Education , Volume 8 -

    2023

  31. [36]

    Jose Ramon Saura, Domingo Ribeiro-Soriano, and Daniel Palacios-Marqu´es. (2022). Assessing behavioral data science privacy issues in government artificial intelligence deployment. Government Information Quarterly, 39(4), 101679. https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/p...

    2022

  32. [38]

    Lvmin Zhang, Anyi Rao, and Maneesh Agrawala. (2023). Adding Conditional Control to Text-to-Image Diffusion Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.05543. arXiv:2302.05543 [cs.CV]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [39]

    S ´ebastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Jo- hannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, and Yi Zhang. (2023). Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experi...

    2023 arXiv

  34. [40]

    Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Junjie Zhang, Zican Dong, Yifan Du, Chen Yang, Yushuo Chen, Zhipeng Chen, Jinhao Jiang, Ruiyang Ren, Yifan Li, Xinyu Tang, Zikang Liu, Peiyu Liu, Jian-Yun Nie, and Ji-Rong W...

    2025 arXiv

  35. [41]

    Irene Plaza-Ortiz, Andres Munoz-Arcentales, Joaqu ´ın Sal- vach´ua, Carlos Aparicio, Gabriel Huecas, and Enrique Barra. (2025). Authentication and authorization in Data Spaces: A relationship-based access control approach for policy spec- ification based on ODRL. https://arxiv...

    2025 arXiv

  36. [42]

    Arnold, Christoph Lange, Christina Gillmann, and Stefan Decker

    Benedikt T. Arnold, Christoph Lange, Christina Gillmann, and Stefan Decker. (2025). A Service Architecture for Dataspaces. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.07979. arXiv:2507.07979 [cs.DB]

    2025 arXiv

  37. [43]

    Krishnashree Achuthan, Sasangan Ramanathan, Sethuraman Srinivas, and Raghu Raman. (2024). Advancing cybersecurity and privacy with artificial intelligence: current trends and fu- ture research directions. Frontiers in Big Data , Volume 7 -

    2024

  38. [44]

    Daniel J. Solove. (2024). Artificial Intelligence and Privacy. Florida Law Review, 77(1). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/ abstract=4713111. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4713111

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    Osorio-Marulanda, Gorka Epelde, Mikel Hernandez, Imanol Isasa, Nicolas Moreno Reyes, and Andoni Beristain Iraola

    Pablo A. Osorio-Marulanda, Gorka Epelde, Mikel Hernandez, Imanol Isasa, Nicolas Moreno Reyes, and Andoni Beristain Iraola. (2024). Privacy Mechanisms and Evaluation Metrics for Synthetic Data Generation: A Systematic Review. IEEE Access, 12, 88048-88074. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.20...

    2024

  40. [48]

    Kochenderfer

    Anka Reuel, Amelia Hardy, Chandler Smith, Max Lamparth, Malcolm Hardy, and Mykel J. Kochenderfer. (2024). Bet- terBench: Assessing AI Benchmarks, Uncovering Issues, and Establishing Best Practices. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.12990. arXiv:2411.12990 [cs.AI]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Mahtab Talaei and Iman Izadi. (2024). Adaptive Differential Privacy in Federated Learning: A Priority-Based Approach. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.02453. arXiv:2401.02453 [cs.CR]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Dalit Ken-Dror Feldman and Daniel Benoliel. (2025). Beyond Explainability: The Case for AI Validation. https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2505.21570. arXiv:2505.21570 [cs.CY]

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Vito Barbara, Massimo Guarascio, Nicola Leone, Giuseppe Manco, Alessandro Quarta, Francesco Ricca, and Ettore Ri- tacco. (2023). Neuro-Symbolic AI for Compliance Checking of Electrical Control Panels. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.10113. arXiv:2305.10113 [cs.AI]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    L. Enqvist. (2024). Rule-based versus AI-driven benefits allo- cation: GDPR and AIA legal implications and challenges for automation in public social security administration. Information and Communications Technology Law , 33(2), 222–246. doi: 10.1080/13600834.2024.2349835

    2024

  45. [53]

    Sefik Serengil and Alper Ozpinar. (2025). Encrypted Vector Similarity Computations Using Partially Homomorphic Encryp- tion: Applications and Performance Analysis. https://arxiv.org/ abs/2503.05850. arXiv:2503.05850 [cs.CR]

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Uddipana Dowerah and Srinivasan Krishnaswamy. (2019). A Somewhat Homomorphic Encryption Scheme based on Multi- variate Polynomial Evaluation. https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.05771. arXiv:1902.05771 [cs.CR]

    2019 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Artur d’Avila Garcez and Luis C. Lamb. (2020). Neurosym- bolic AI: The 3rd Wave. https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.05876. arXiv:2012.05876 [cs.AI]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Murray, Abraham Stefanidis, William Y

    Waymond Rodgers, James M. Murray, Abraham Stefanidis, William Y . Degbey, and Shlomo Y . Tarba. (2023). An ar- tificial intelligence algorithmic approach to ethical decision- making in human resource management processes. Human Resource Management Review , 33(1), 100925. https...

    2023

  49. [57]

    Tamilselvi, V

    P. Tamilselvi, V . Lathika, S. Jayachitra, S. Arunkumar, M. Balasubramani, and V . Kalaichelvi. (2024). Secure Multi- Party Computation for Collaborative Data Analysis in Network Security. In 2024 International Conference on Intelligent and Innovative Technologies in Computing...

    2024

  50. [58]

    Joon-Woo Lee, Hyungchul Kang, Yongwoo Lee, Woosuk Choi, Jieun Eom, Maxim Deryabin, Eunsang Lee, Junghyun Lee, Donghoon Yoo, Young-Sik Kim, and Jong-Seon No. (2022). Privacy-Preserving Machine Learning With Fully Homomorphic Encryption for Deep Neural Network. IEEE Access, 10, ...

    2022

  51. [59]

    Valerio Goretti, Davide Basile, Luca Barbaro, and Clau- dio Di Ciccio. (2024). Trusted Execution Environment for Decentralized Process Mining. In Advanced Information Systems Engineering , 509–527. Springer Nature Switzerland. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61057-8 30. do...

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    Mirwais Ahmadzai and Giang Nguyen. (2023). Federated Learning with Differential Privacy on Personal Opinions: A Privacy-Preserving Approach. Procedia Computer Science , 225, 543-552. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S1877050923011973. doi: https://doi.org/10....

    2023 doi

  53. [62]

    Maria Eriksson, Erasmo Purificato, Arman Noroozian, Joao Vinagre, Guillaume Chaslot, Emilia Gomez, and David Fernandez-Llorca. (2025). Can We Trust AI Benchmarks? An Interdisciplinary Review of Current Issues in AI Evaluation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.06559. arXiv:2502.06559 [cs.AI]

    2025 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Nicoletta Rangone and Luca Megale. (2025). Risks Without Rights? The EU AI Act’s Approach to AI in Law and Rule- Making. European Journal of Risk Regulation, pages 1–16. doi: 10.1017/err.2025.13

    2025 doi

  55. [277]

    https://www.mdpi.com/2073-431X/13/11/277. doi: 10. 3390/computers13110277

  56. [2023]

    3389/feduc.2023.1183162

    https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education/articles/10. 3389/feduc.2023.1183162. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1183162

    2023

  57. [2024]

    3389/fdata.2024.1497535

    https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/big-data/articles/10. 3389/fdata.2024.1497535. doi: 10.3389/fdata.2024.1497535

    2024

  58. [3612]

    doi: 10.3390/s23073612

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.