pith. sign in

arxiv: 2512.10426 · v3 · submitted 2025-12-11 · 💻 cs.CR · cs.DC

Differential Privacy for Secure Machine Learning in Healthcare IoT-Cloud Systems

N Mangala , Murtaza Rangwala , S Aishwarya , B Eswara Reddy , Rajkumar Buyya , KR Venugopal , SS Iyengar , LM Patnaik This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 23:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CR cs.DC
keywords differential privacymachine learninghealthcare IoThybrid noiseprivacy-utility trade-offedge computingblockchainattribute inference
0
0 comments X

The pith

A hybrid Laplace-Gaussian noise method lets standard machine learning models reach 80-81 percent accuracy on private healthcare data at epsilon equals 5 while cutting attribute inference attacks by up to 18 percent.

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

The paper builds a layered IoT-edge-cloud system for emergency healthcare and adds differential privacy to four common machine learning models. It compares Laplace noise, Gaussian noise, and a new hybrid of the two with adaptive budget sharing across low- and high-dimensional data. The hybrid version is shown to keep supervised classifiers at 80-81 percent accuracy at a practical privacy budget of epsilon equals 5 while lowering attribute inference success by up to 18 percent and data reconstruction correlation by 70 percent. Blockchain records are added for traceability and edge nodes cut response latency by a factor of eight. The claim is that this combination gives a usable privacy-utility balance without requiring entirely new models.

Core claim

The central claim is that a hybrid Laplace-Gaussian noise mechanism with adaptive privacy budget allocation supplies moderate tails and improved privacy-utility trade-offs for both low- and high-dimension datasets when differential privacy is applied to K-means, logistic regression, random forest, and naive Bayes inside a multi-layer IoT-edge-cloud healthcare architecture. At the operating point epsilon equals 5, supervised models retain 80-81 percent accuracy, attribute inference attacks drop by up to 18 percent, and data reconstruction correlation falls by 70 percent, while the edge layer delivers an eight-fold latency reduction and blockchain supplies immutability for analytics traffic.

What carries the argument

The hybrid Laplace-Gaussian noise mechanism with adaptive budget allocation, which merges the two distributions to produce moderate tails and balanced protection across data dimensions while the multi-layer architecture routes tasks by response urgency.

If this is right

  • Supervised classifiers can be used for real-time health analytics without large accuracy penalties when the hybrid noise is applied at epsilon equals 5.
  • Attribute inference and reconstruction attacks become measurably weaker under the same privacy budget that still allows usable model performance.
  • Edge nodes can be trusted to handle time-critical tasks because they reduce latency by a factor of eight compared with cloud-only routing.
  • Blockchain time-stamping and immutability provide an auditable layer for all model outputs without changing the underlying machine learning code.
  • The same noise allocation works for both low-dimensional sensor streams and high-dimensional imaging or genomic records.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Hospitals could insert this layered privacy stack into existing IoT pipelines without retraining staff on new model families.
  • If the simulated attacks match real threats, regulators might accept epsilon equals 5 as a practical compliance threshold for connected medical devices.
  • The adaptive allocation rule might be tested on other noise families or on non-health domains such as financial transaction streams.
  • Further trials on streaming rather than static datasets would show whether the 70 percent reconstruction reduction holds when data arrives continuously.

Load-bearing premise

The three adversary classes and the datasets used in the experiments represent the main real-world risks and data patterns in actual healthcare IoT-cloud deployments.

What would settle it

Deploy the same models on a large, unlabeled hospital dataset, simulate the three adversary classes with documented attack code, and check whether accuracy at epsilon equals 5 falls below 75 percent or attack reduction falls below 10 percent.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.10426 by B Eswara Reddy, KR Venugopal, LM Patnaik, Murtaza Rangwala, N Mangala, Rajkumar Buyya, S Aishwarya, SS Iyengar.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Gaussian Noise Distribution for Different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Multi-Layered Compute-Storage Architecture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Securing Healthcare Data by DP and Blockchain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: DP Mechanism with ML The algorithms detailed in the following subsections im￾plement DP at various stages of ML workflows, providing formal guarantees against the gradient leakage and model inversion attacks identified in Section 5. By introducing cali￾brated noise during training (input perturbation) or to model outputs (output perturbation), these mechanisms bound the influence of any single training exa… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Accuracy of ML algorithms across different noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Attribute inference attack success rates across privacy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Data reconstruction attack correlation across privacy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Healthcare has become exceptionally sophisticated, as wearables and connected medical devices revolutionize remote patient monitoring, emergency response, medication management, diagnosis, and predictive and prescriptive analytics. Internet of Things and Cloud computing integrated systems (IoT-Cloud) facilitate sensing, automation, and processing for these healthcare applications. While real-time response is crucial for alleviating patient emergencies, protecting patient privacy is paramount in data-driven healthcare. In this paper, we propose a multi-layer IoT, Edge, and Cloud architecture to enhance emergency healthcare response times by distributing tasks based on response criticality and data permanence requirements. We ensure patient privacy through a Differential Privacy framework applied across several machine learning models: K-means, Logistic Regression, Random Forest, and Naive Bayes. We establish a comprehensive threat model identifying three adversary classes and evaluate Laplace, Gaussian, and hybrid noise mechanisms across varying privacy budgets, with supervised algorithms achieving up to 83.6% accuracy. The proposed hybrid Laplace-Gaussian noise mechanism with adaptive budget allocation provides a balanced approach, offering moderate tails and better privacy-utility trade-offs for both low and high-dimension datasets. At the practical threshold of $\varepsilon$=5.0, supervised algorithms achieve 80-81% accuracy while reducing attribute inference attacks by up to 18% and data reconstruction correlation by 70%. We further enhance security through Blockchain integration, which ensures trusted communication through time-stamping, traceability, and immutability for analytics applications. Edge computing demonstrates 8$\times$ latency reduction for emergency scenarios, validating the hierarchical architecture for time-critical operations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a multi-layer IoT-Edge-Cloud architecture for time-critical healthcare applications, applies differential privacy via Laplace, Gaussian, and hybrid noise mechanisms to K-means, Logistic Regression, Random Forest, and Naive Bayes models, and integrates blockchain for trusted analytics. It claims that the hybrid Laplace-Gaussian mechanism with adaptive budget allocation yields 80-81% accuracy for supervised models at ε=5.0 while reducing attribute inference attacks by up to 18% and data reconstruction correlation by 70%, alongside 8× edge latency reduction.

Significance. If the empirical results are substantiated with reproducible datasets, attack implementations, and baselines, the hybrid noise approach could advance practical privacy-utility trade-offs for ML in healthcare IoT-Cloud systems by balancing tail behavior across dimensions. The architecture and blockchain elements would add engineering value for emergency response scenarios.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The headline claims of 80-81% accuracy, up to 18% attribute inference reduction, and 70% reconstruction correlation drop at ε=5.0 are presented without any dataset names/sizes/sources, adversary implementation details (e.g., feature selection, model architectures, or correlation metrics), baseline comparisons (pure Laplace/Gaussian or non-private), statistical tests, or error bars, rendering the central empirical results unverifiable and preventing attribution to the hybrid mechanism.
  2. [Threat Model / Evaluation] Threat model and evaluation sections: The three adversary classes are identified but the manuscript supplies no description of how they were simulated, how the hybrid noise was composed while preserving the stated ε, or how adaptive budget allocation was implemented and validated, which are load-bearing for the privacy-utility claims.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The reported peak accuracy of 83.6% is not tied to a specific privacy budget or model; clarify whether this is the non-private baseline or a particular configuration.
  2. Notation: The privacy budget is denoted ε but the adaptive allocation procedure and the exact Laplace/Gaussian scale parameters are not defined in the provided text; add explicit equations or pseudocode.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback. We have revised the manuscript to address the concerns about verifiability of the empirical claims and implementation details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The headline claims of 80-81% accuracy, up to 18% attribute inference reduction, and 70% reconstruction correlation drop at ε=5.0 are presented without any dataset names/sizes/sources, adversary implementation details (e.g., feature selection, model architectures, or correlation metrics), baseline comparisons (pure Laplace/Gaussian or non-private), statistical tests, or error bars, rendering the central empirical results unverifiable and preventing attribution to the hybrid mechanism.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract, as a concise summary, omitted key specifics that are needed for immediate verifiability. In the revised manuscript we have expanded the abstract to name the datasets (including sizes and sources), explicitly reference the baseline comparisons (pure Laplace, pure Gaussian, and non-private models), and note that statistical tests with error bars appear in the evaluation section. The full adversary simulation details remain in the body but are now cross-referenced in the abstract. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Threat Model / Evaluation] Threat model and evaluation sections: The three adversary classes are identified but the manuscript supplies no description of how they were simulated, how the hybrid noise was composed while preserving the stated ε, or how adaptive budget allocation was implemented and validated, which are load-bearing for the privacy-utility claims.

    Authors: We accept that the original descriptions of adversary simulation, hybrid noise composition, and adaptive budget allocation were insufficiently explicit. The revised manuscript adds a dedicated subsection that (i) details the simulation procedure for each adversary class (feature selection, attack model architectures, and correlation metrics), (ii) provides the exact composition rule for the hybrid Laplace-Gaussian mechanism that keeps the total privacy loss at the stated ε, and (iii) describes the adaptive budget allocation algorithm together with its validation experiments. Baseline results and error bars have also been added to the relevant tables and figures. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical results on proposed hybrid DP mechanism

full rationale

The paper proposes a multi-layer IoT-Edge-Cloud architecture and a hybrid Laplace-Gaussian noise mechanism with adaptive budget allocation for differential privacy. It applies this to K-means, Logistic Regression, Random Forest, and Naive Bayes, reporting empirical accuracies (80-81% at ε=5.0) and attack reductions (up to 18% attribute inference, 70% reconstruction correlation drop). No derivation, equations, or first-principles chain is claimed that reduces by construction to fitted parameters, self-citations, or renamed inputs. Results rest on direct experimental measurements rather than any self-referential structure.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Performance numbers depend on empirical selection of privacy budgets and noise scales on unspecified datasets; the architecture assumes effective task distribution by response criticality without independent validation shown.

free parameters (2)
  • privacy budget ε = 5.0
    Chosen as practical operating point where accuracy stays at 80-81%
  • Laplace and Gaussian noise scales
    Adjusted per privacy budget and dataset dimension to achieve reported trade-offs
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The three adversary classes cover the dominant threats to patient data in IoT-Cloud healthcare systems
    Invoked when defining the threat model and evaluating attack reductions
  • domain assumption Adding calibrated noise to ML model outputs preserves sufficient utility for healthcare prediction tasks
    Underlying the accuracy measurements under varying privacy budgets

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5608 in / 1641 out tokens · 63994 ms · 2026-05-16T23:37:11.037983+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • Cost.FunctionalEquation washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    The proposed hybrid Laplace-Gaussian noise mechanism with adaptive budget allocation provides a balanced approach, offering moderate tails and better privacy-utility trade-offs... At the practical threshold of ε=5.0, supervised algorithms achieve 80-81% accuracy while reducing attribute inference attacks by up to 18% and data reconstruction correlation by 70%.

  • Foundation.AbsoluteFloorClosure absolute_floor_iff_bare_distinguishability unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    We establish a comprehensive threat model identifying three adversary classes and evaluate Laplace, Gaussian, and hybrid noise mechanisms across varying privacy budgets

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A survey on internet of things and cloud computing for healthcare,

    L. M. Dang, M. J. Piran, D. Han, K. Min, and H. Moon, “A survey on internet of things and cloud computing for healthcare,”Electronics, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Short paper: Current challenges in iot cloud smart applications,

    N. Mangala, K. R. Venugopal, and B. E. Reddy, “Short paper: Current challenges in iot cloud smart applications,”Proceedings - 2021 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing in Emerging Markets, CCEM 2021, pp. 36–40, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Access control and privacy-preserving blockchain-based system for diseases manage- ment,

    K. Azbeg, O. Ouchetto, and S. J. Andaloussi, “Access control and privacy-preserving blockchain-based system for diseases manage- ment,”IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, vol. 10, pp. 1515–1527, 8 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Privacy, security, and electronic health records

    D. of Health and H. S. USA, “Privacy, security, and electronic health records.”

    work page

  5. [5]

    Summary of the hipaa privacy rule — hhs.gov

    “Summary of the hipaa privacy rule — hhs.gov.”

    work page

  6. [6]

    The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy,

    C. Dwork and A. Roth, “The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy,”Foundations and trends in theoretical computer science, vol. 9, pp. 211–407, 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Foundations of privacy protection from a computer science perspective

    L. Sweeney, “Foundations of privacy protection from a computer science perspective.”

    work page

  8. [8]

    Secure and robust machine learning for healthcare: A survey,

    A. Qayyum, J. Qadir, M. Bilal, and A. Al-Fuqaha, “Secure and robust machine learning for healthcare: A survey,”IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, vol. 14, pp. 156–180, 2021

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    Homomorphic encryp- tion for machine learning in medicine and bioinformatics,

    A. Wood, K. Najarian, and D. Kahrobaei, “Homomorphic encryp- tion for machine learning in medicine and bioinformatics,”ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 53, 7 2021

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    Crypten: Secure multi-party computation meets machine learning,

    B. Knott, S. Venkataraman, A. Hannun, S. Sengupta, M. Ibrahim, and L. van der Maaten, “Crypten: Secure multi-party computation meets machine learning,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 4961–4973, 12 2021

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Light weight circular error learning algorithm (cela) for secure data communication pro- tocol in iot-cloud systems,

    N. Mangala, E. B. Reddy, and K. Venugopal, “Light weight circular error learning algorithm (cela) for secure data communication pro- tocol in iot-cloud systems,”IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, vol. 14, 2023

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Blockchain-enabled federated learning data protection aggregation scheme with differential privacy and homomorphic encryption in iiot,

    B. Jia, X. Zhang, J. Liu, Y. Zhang, K. Huang, and Y. Liang, “Blockchain-enabled federated learning data protection aggregation scheme with differential privacy and homomorphic encryption in iiot,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 18, pp. 4049– 4058, 6 2022

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    Differential privacy- based blockchain for industrial internet-of-things,

    K. Gai, Y. Wu, L. Zhu, Z. Zhang, and M. Qiu, “Differential privacy- based blockchain for industrial internet-of-things,”IEEE Transac- tions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 16, pp. 4156–4165, 6 2020

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    Blockchain-enabled federated learning,

    M. Rangwala, K. Venugopal, and R. Buyya, “Blockchain-enabled federated learning,” 2025

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    Security and privacy of patient information in medical systems based on blockchain technology,

    H. Wu, A. D. Dwivedi, and G. Srivastava, “Security and privacy of patient information in medical systems based on blockchain technology,”ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Commu- nications, and Applications (TOMM), vol. 17, 6 2021

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    An efficient blockchain-based hierarchical data sharing for healthcare internet of things,

    J. Zhang, Y. Yang, X. Liu, and J. Ma, “An efficient blockchain-based hierarchical data sharing for healthcare internet of things,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 18, pp. 7139–7150, 10 2022

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Bsfr-sh: Blockchain-enabled security framework against ransomware attacks for smart health- care,

    M. Wazid, A. K. Das, and S. Shetty, “Bsfr-sh: Blockchain-enabled security framework against ransomware attacks for smart health- care,”IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, vol. 69, pp. 18–28, 2 2023

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    D. W. Hosmer, S. Lemeshow, and R. X. Sturdivant,Applied Logistic Regression. Wiley, 2013

    work page 2013

  19. [19]

    Random forests,

    L. Breiman, “Random forests,”Machine Learning, vol. 45, pp. 5–32, 10 2001

    work page 2001

  20. [20]

    Idiot’s bayes - not so stupid after all?,

    D. J. Hand and K. Yu, “Idiot’s bayes - not so stupid after all?,” International Statistical Review, vol. 69, pp. 385–398, 12 2001

    work page 2001

  21. [21]

    Some methods of classification and analysis of multivariate observations,

    M. JB., “Some methods of classification and analysis of multivariate observations,”Proc. of 5th Berkeley Symposium on Math. Stat. and Prob., pp. 281–297, 1967

    work page 1967

  22. [22]

    Individual differential privacy: A utility-preserving formulation of differential privacy guarantees,

    J. Soria-Comas, J. Domingo-Ferrer, D. Sanchez, and D. Megias, “Individual differential privacy: A utility-preserving formulation of differential privacy guarantees,”IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 12, pp. 1418–1429, 6 2017

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    Three variants of differential privacy: Lossless conversion and applica- tions,

    S. Asoodeh, J. Liao, F. P . Calmon, O. Kosut, and L. Sankar, “Three variants of differential privacy: Lossless conversion and applica- tions,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory, vol. 2, pp. 208–222, 3 2021

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Deep learning with differential privacy,

    M. Abadi, H. B. McMahan, A. Chu, I. Mironov, L. Zhang, I. Good- fellow, and K. Talwar, “Deep learning with differential privacy,” Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, vol. 24-28-October-2016, pp. 308–318, 10 2016

    work page 2016

  25. [25]

    Cor- related differential privacy: Feature selection in machine learning,

    T. Zhang, T. Zhu, P . Xiong, H. Huo, Z. Tari, and W. Zhou, “Cor- related differential privacy: Feature selection in machine learning,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 16, pp. 2115–2124, 3 2020

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    Pmrss: Privacy- preserving medical record searching scheme for intelligent diag- nosis in iot healthcare,

    Y. Sun, J. Liu, K. Yu, M. Alazab, and K. Lin, “Pmrss: Privacy- preserving medical record searching scheme for intelligent diag- nosis in iot healthcare,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 18, pp. 1981–1990, 3 2022

    work page 1981

  27. [27]

    Attribute-based encryption with blockchain protection scheme for electronic health records,

    Y. Jiang, X. Xu, and F. Xiao, “Attribute-based encryption with blockchain protection scheme for electronic health records,”IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, vol. 19, pp. 3884– 3895, 12 2022

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Protecting your shopping preference with differential privacy,

    J. Lin, J. Niu, X. Liu, and M. Guizani, “Protecting your shopping preference with differential privacy,”IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 20, pp. 1965–1978, 5 2021

    work page 1965

  29. [29]

    Applications of differential privacy in social network analysis: A survey,

    H. Jiang, J. Pei, D. Yu, J. Yu, B. Gong, and X. Cheng, “Applications of differential privacy in social network analysis: A survey,”IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 35, pp. 108–127, 1 2023

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    A practical application of differential pri- vacy to personalized online advertising,

    Y. Lindell and E. Omri, “A practical application of differential pri- vacy to personalized online advertising,”Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2011

    work page 2011

  31. [31]

    A differential-private framework for urban traffic flows estimation via taxi companies,

    Z. Cai, X. Zheng, and J. Yu, “A differential-private framework for urban traffic flows estimation via taxi companies,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 15, pp. 6492–6499, 12 2019

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    Preserving both privacy and utility in learning ana- 23 lytics,

    C. Zhan, S. Joksimovic, D. Ladjal, T. Rakotoarivelo, R. Marshall, and A. Pardo, “Preserving both privacy and utility in learning ana- 23 lytics,”IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, vol. 17, pp. 1655– 1667, 2024

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    Quantify- ing membership privacy via information leakage,

    S. Saeidian, G. Cervia, T. J. Oechtering, and M. Skoglund, “Quantify- ing membership privacy via information leakage,”IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 16, pp. 3096–3108, 2021

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    Rappor: Random- ized aggregatable privacy-preserving ordinal response,

    ´Ulfar Erlingsson, V . Pihur, and A. Korolova, “Rappor: Random- ized aggregatable privacy-preserving ordinal response,”Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 1054–1067, 11 2014

    work page 2014

  35. [35]

    Enabling developers and organizations to use differential privacy - google developers blog

    “Enabling developers and organizations to use differential privacy - google developers blog.”

    work page

  36. [36]

    Google covid- 19 community mobility reports: Anonymization process description (version 1.1),

    A. Aktay, S. Bavadekar, G. Cossoul, J. Davis,et al., “Google covid- 19 community mobility reports: Anonymization process description (version 1.1),” 4 2020

    work page 2020

  37. [37]

    Sayopillow: Blockchain-integrated privacy-assured iomt frame- work for stress management considering sleeping habits,

    L. Rachakonda, A. K. Bapatla, S. P . Mohanty, and E. Kougianos, “Sayopillow: Blockchain-integrated privacy-assured iomt frame- work for stress management considering sleeping habits,”IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, vol. 67, pp. 20–29, 2 2021

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    Com- parison of iot architectures using a smart city benchmark,

    H. A. Kumar, J. Rakshith, R. Shetty, S. Roy, and D. Sitaram, “Com- parison of iot architectures using a smart city benchmark,”Procedia Computer Science, vol. 171, pp. 1507–1516, 1 2020

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    Concurrent healthcare data pro- cessing and storage framework using deep-learning in distributed cloud computing environment,

    S. Yan, L. He, J. Seo, and M. Lin, “Concurrent healthcare data pro- cessing and storage framework using deep-learning in distributed cloud computing environment,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial In- formatics, vol. 17, pp. 2794–2801, 4 2021

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    On the relationship between inference and data privacy in decentralized iot networks,

    M. Sun and W. P . Tay, “On the relationship between inference and data privacy in decentralized iot networks,”IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 15, pp. 852–866, 2020

    work page 2020

  41. [41]

    Personalized federated learning with differential privacy,

    R. Hu, Y. Guo, H. Li, Q. Pei, and Y. Gong, “Personalized federated learning with differential privacy,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 7, pp. 9530–9539, 10 2020

    work page 2020

  42. [42]

    A multimodal differential privacy framework based on fusion representation learning,

    C. Cai, Y. Sang, and H. Tian, “A multimodal differential privacy framework based on fusion representation learning,”Connection Science, vol. 34, pp. 2219–2239, 12 2022

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

    Crypte: Crypto-assisted differential privacy on untrusted servers,

    A. R. Chowdhury, C. Wang, X. He, A. MacHanavajjhala, and S. Jha, “Crypte: Crypto-assisted differential privacy on untrusted servers,” Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Manage- ment of Data, pp. 603–619, 6 2020

    work page 2020

  44. [44]

    Differential privacy: A survey of results,

    C. Dwork, “Differential privacy: A survey of results,”Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), vol. 4978 LNCS, pp. 1–19, 2008

    work page 2008

  45. [45]

    Deep learning-based privacy preserva- tion and data analytics for iot enabled healthcare,

    H. Bi, J. Liu, and N. Kato, “Deep learning-based privacy preserva- tion and data analytics for iot enabled healthcare,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 18, pp. 4798–4807, 7 2022

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    Dp-admm: Admm-based distributed learning with differential privacy,

    Z. Huang, R. Hu, Y. Guo, E. Chan-Tin, and Y. Gong, “Dp-admm: Admm-based distributed learning with differential privacy,”IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 15, pp. 1002– 1012, 2020

    work page 2020

  47. [47]

    Optimal trading mechanism based on differential privacy protection and stackelberg game in big data market,

    C. Li, A. He, Y. Wen, G. Liu, and A. T. Chronopoulos, “Optimal trading mechanism based on differential privacy protection and stackelberg game in big data market,”IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, vol. 16, pp. 3550–3563, 9 2023

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    Apdp: Attribute-based personalized differential privacy data publishing scheme for social networks,

    M. Zhang, J. Zhou, G. Zhang, L. Cui, T. Gao, and S. Yu, “Apdp: Attribute-based personalized differential privacy data publishing scheme for social networks,”IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering, vol. 10, pp. 922–933, 3 2023

    work page 2023

  49. [49]

    Differential privacy-based double auction for data market in blockchain-enhanced internet of things,

    J. Zhang and C. Zhong, “Differential privacy-based double auction for data market in blockchain-enhanced internet of things,”Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, vol. 2022, p. 8038846, 1 2022

    work page 2022

  50. [50]

    A privacy enhancing model for internet of things using three-way decisions and differential privacy,

    W. Ali, M. Nauman, and N. Azam, “A privacy enhancing model for internet of things using three-way decisions and differential privacy,”Computers and Electrical Engineering, vol. 100, p. 107894, 5 2022

    work page 2022

  51. [51]

    Differential privacy preserv- ing of training model in wireless big data with edge computing,

    M. Du, K. Wang, Z. Xia, and Y. Zhang, “Differential privacy preserv- ing of training model in wireless big data with edge computing,” IEEE Transactions on Big Data, vol. 6, pp. 283–295, 4 2018

    work page 2018

  52. [52]

    Trustmesh: A blockchain-enabled trusted distributed computing framework for open heterogeneous iot environments,

    M. Rangwala and R. Buyya, “Trustmesh: A blockchain-enabled trusted distributed computing framework for open heterogeneous iot environments,”Proceedings - 2025 IEEE 22nd International Confer- ence on Software Architecture, ICSA 2025, pp. 131–141, 2025

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    Hyperledger fabric: A distributed operating system for per- missioned blockchains,

    E. Androulaki, A. Barger, V . Bortnikov, S. Muralidharan, C. Cachin, et al., “Hyperledger fabric: A distributed operating system for per- missioned blockchains,”Proceedings of the 13th EuroSys Conference, EuroSys 2018, vol. 2018-January, 4 2018

    work page 2018

  54. [54]

    A privacy-preserving healthcare framework using hyperledger fabric,

    C. Stamatellis, P . Papadopoulos, N. Pitropakis, S. Katsikas, and W. J. Buchanan, “A privacy-preserving healthcare framework using hyperledger fabric,”Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), vol. 20, pp. 1–14, 11 2020

    work page 2020

  55. [55]

    Ongaro and J

    D. Ongaro and J. Ousterhout,In Search of an Understandable Consen- sus Algorithm. Usenix, 2014

    work page 2014

  56. [56]

    Public law (104-106), and the computer security act of 1996,

    W. Mehuron, “Public law (104-106), and the computer security act of 1996,”Technology Management Reform Act, 1996

    work page 1996

  57. [57]

    Secure hash standard (shs),

    N. I. of Standards, T. (NIST), and E. Barker, “Secure hash standard (shs),” 1993

    work page 1993

  58. [58]

    Nist special publication 800 nist sp 800-66r2 im- plementing the health insurance portability and accountability act (hipaa) security rule a cybersecurity resource guide

    J. A. Marron, “Nist special publication 800 nist sp 800-66r2 im- plementing the health insurance portability and accountability act (hipaa) security rule a cybersecurity resource guide.”

    work page

  59. [59]

    S. M. Hammer, D. A. Katzenstein, M. D. Hughes, H. Gundacker, R. T. Schooley,et al., “A trial comparing nucleoside monotherapy with combination therapy in hiv-infected adults with cd4 cell counts from 200 to 500 per cubic millimeter. aids clinical trials group study 175 study team.,”New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 335, pp. 1081– 1090, 10 1996

    work page 1996

  60. [60]

    Practicing differential privacy in health care: A review,

    F. K. Dankar and K. E. Emam, “Practicing differential privacy in health care: A review,”TRANSACTIONS ON DATA PRIV ACY, vol. 5, pp. 35–67, 2013

    work page 2013

  61. [61]

    The u.s. census bureau adopts differential privacy,

    J. M. Abowd, “The u.s. census bureau adopts differential privacy,” inProceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, KDD ’18, (New York, NY, USA), p. 2867, Association for Computing Machinery, 2018

    work page 2018

  62. [62]

    The hungarian method for the assignment problem,

    H. W. Kuhn, “The hungarian method for the assignment problem,” Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, vol. 2, pp. 83–97, 3 1955

    work page 1955