Interpretable Encrypted Searchable Neural Networks

Chungen Xu; Jian Wan; Kai Chen; Zhongrui Lin

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 15 references

Interpretable Encrypted Searchable Neural Networks

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Probabilistic ranking of encrypted indexes, learned from random queries, can bring encrypted search close to O(log N) query time while updating index weights in the cloud.

desk verdict An intriguing but unsubstantiated proposal for ML-based searchable encryption; the central O(log N) claim collapses without a ranking guarantee, so it doesn't yet merit peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04998 v1 pith:V4JH3PP6 submitted 2019-08-14 cs.CR cs.LG

Kai Chen , Zhongrui Lin , Jian Wan , Chungen Xu This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CRcs.LG

keywords searchableencryptionprobabilisticrankingencryptedsearchneuralnetworkstop-kretrievaldynamicindexupdatecloudsecurityadversariallearning

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 paper tries to establish that machine learning can fix the two enduring bottlenecks of searchable encryption: slow top-k queries and costly dynamic index updates. It proposes interpretable encrypted searchable neural networks (IESNN), in which a sorting network learns a probabilistic ranking of encrypted index vectors from many uniformly random queries, and the cloud then answers top-k queries by looking up that ranking, with query complexity approaching O(log N). The same construction adds adversarial and weight-update networks that adjust index weights inside the cloud, so indexes can track new data without the user downloading, decrypting, and re-uploading them. If the claim holds, encrypted cloud search becomes practical for large, changing datasets, and ciphertext itself can serve as training data. The evidence is a small real-world experiment (400 documents, 2,000 keywords) whose own figure caption concedes that precision is not stable across all values of k.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the sorting network built from encrypted index vectors. Each document index is a weighted vector over the keyword dictionary, padded with pseudo-keywords and encrypted by splitting the vector and multiplying with random invertible matrices so that inner products can still be computed on ciphertext. During setup the network issues many random queries $Q_j \sim U(-\sigma\sqrt{3}, \sigma\sqrt{3})$, computes the sum $\sum_j I_i^T Q_j$ for each index, and sorts indices by this score; that precomputed order is the probabilistic ranking used for queries. Updates are carried by two auxiliary networks: a searching adversarial network computes residual weight changes and ranking shifts from top-k feedback, and a weight-update network applies those changes through vector and matrix operations that are locally homomorphic to plaintext increments.

What would settle it

Take a document set with known relevance judgments, build the sorting network exactly as described, then issue real user queries of varying popularity. If the precision of top-k retrieval from the probabilistic ranking falls below a linear-scan baseline whenever the query is not popular, or if precision collapses in the k-regions identified in the paper's Fig. 3, the central claim is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that ranking encrypted index vectors by the sum of their inner products with many random query vectors gives an ordering close to the ordering a real user query would produce, and that this probabilistic ranking supports top-k retrieval in time close to O(log N). On top of this, a searching adversarial network and a weight-update network (combining backpropagation with a discrete recurrent network) let the cloud update index weights automatically, so dynamic operations add, delete, change, and search for keywords without expensive communication. The authors state that this combination outperforms tree-based search [3,13] and matrix-based multi-keyword ranked search [1,6], and that the update operations are performed in the cloud with only small amounts of data touched.

Load-bearing premise

The whole design rests on the assumption that summing inner products with many uniformly random query vectors produces an index ranking close to the ranking a real user query would produce; the paper states this closeness without proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Top-k retrieval no longer needs a full scan or a balanced tree: the precomputed probabilistic ranking lets the cloud read off the top-k indexes, bringing query complexity toward O(log N).
Dynamic updates (adding or removing documents or keywords) can be executed in the cloud by adjusting index weights, eliminating the download-decrypt-update-upload cycle of earlier schemes.
The index itself becomes a training signal: ciphertext-based sorting can produce rankings consistent with plaintext analysis, so encrypted data can feed machine-learning pipelines.
Precision depends on how 'popular' the query vector is; the authors report that unpopular queries lower precision because the probabilistic ranking is not strictly ordered.

Reading between the lines

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

If the probabilistic-ranking assumption is formalized, the natural next step is an error bound: for a given number of random queries and query distribution, how close the learned ranking is to the optimal ranking can likely be quantified with concentration inequalities; the paper does not attempt this.
The sorting network's reliance only on inner products suggests the idea could transfer to any encrypted inner-product scheme, not just the particular matrix-splitting encryption used here.
A practical deployment would need a privacy analysis of the update residuals: returning top-k feedback to the adversarial network reveals ranking information that a semi-trusted cloud could exploit; the paper asserts security in the known-background model but does not analyze this leakage.
The approach could combine with tree indices: probabilistic ranking could choose which subtree to descend first, potentially making tree search robust in multi-owner settings where ordinary balanced trees degrade.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Chen et al. propose IESNN, a scheme that combines searchable encryption with neural-network-style modules: probabilistic ranking of index vectors via sums of inner products with random queries, a searching adversarial network (SAN), and a weight update network (WUN) meant to let the cloud update index weights without talking to the data owner. The combination is genuinely new as far as I know, and the paper deserves credit for asking whether ML can help where tree-based and matrix-based SE schemes are expensive. The dynamic-update ambitions are also reasonable.

The problem is that the paper does not actually back any of its headline claims. The abstract promises query complexity closer to O(log N) and better performance than prior work. What the reader gets is a high-level description of the modules, a figure, and a caption that admits the precision is unstable. No concrete algorithm for O(log N) search is given, and no complexity analysis accounts for building or maintaining the ordering that the probabilistic ranking is supposed to produce.

The stress-test note is right, and the issue is worse than just a missing proof. Summing inner products with many random queries yields I_i · (Σ_j Q_j). So the entire ranking is determined by one fixed random direction. Nothing in the paper suggests that direction will match an arbitrary user query. The authors assert closeness in §3.1; their own Fig. 3 caption concedes that ranking is 'not strictly ordered' and that precision varies with query popularity. That is a load-bearing assumption, and it fails in their own reported experiments.

The adversarial and weight-update modules are sketched in generic equations (2)–(4) that don't specify how the increment is computed or how convergence is guaranteed. There is no code, no data, no numeric results. The paper reads as a research proposal, not as a demonstrated system. If a concrete algorithm and a reproducible experiment were added, the direction might become publishable.

Who is this for? Someone writing a survey of speculative ML-SE hybrids might cite it, and a reading group could have a fun discussion about why the ranking trick fails. But it should not be sent to serious peer review in its current form. I would desk-reject it and invite the authors to come back with a proof of concept.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes IESNN, a framework that combines probabilistic learning, adversarial learning, and automatic weight update with searchable encryption. The claimed contributions are a probabilistic ranking of encrypted index vectors that brings query complexity closer to O(log N), cloud-side automatic weight updates without expensive communication, and low computation/communication overhead compared with prior searchable encryption schemes. The manuscript describes a system architecture, a sorting network based on random queries, a searching adversarial network (SAN), a weight update network (WUN), and an experimental comparison on a collection of 400 IEEE INFOCOM papers.

Significance. If the central claims were established, the paper would address a real problem: reducing the computation and communication cost of dynamic searchable encryption while preserving privacy. The paper also usefully identifies the opportunity to combine machine learning ideas with encrypted search and gives a concrete ASPE-style encryption construction in Section 2.2. However, the load-bearing assertions, especially the probabilistic-ranking closeness assumption and the O(log N) query complexity claim, are stated without proof or algorithmic specification, and the experimental evidence is too thin to validate them. The manuscript is better viewed as a high-level proposal than as a verified scheme; in its current form it does not provide the formal support expected for the claimed results.

major comments (5)

[§3.1, Eq. (1)] The central ranking assumption is unproved and is not supported by the paper's own experiments. The text states that after sorting index vectors by sum of inner products with random queries, 'the index ranking obtained by probabilistic learning is close to the ranking in the actual query.' Algebraically, sum_j I_i^T Q_j = I_i^T (sum_j Q_j), so the entire ordering is determined by one fixed direction R = sum_j Q_j in the feature space. Nothing in the paper shows that ranking by this fixed random direction approximates ranking under an arbitrary user query q; for any fixed direction one can construct queries for which the two rankings differ substantially. The caption of Fig. 3 itself concedes that 'the probabilistic ranking of the index vector is not strictly ordered' and that precision is 'high or low' depending on how popular the query is. Since the abstract's near-logarithmic complexity claim depends on this assumption, the central argument lacks the necessary support.
[§3.1, 'probabilistic query algorithm'] No algorithm is actually given for the claimed O(log N) probabilistic query. The text says that probabilistic query 'brings the query complexity closer to O(log N)', but it does not specify how a user query is mapped to a logarithmic-length search path in the probabilistic ranking, nor does it provide a complexity analysis accounting for the cost of building and maintaining the sorted order. Figure 3 reports only a qualitative comparison of numbers of retrieved indexes; it does not provide the algorithmic steps or a formal complexity bound that would let a reader verify the O(log N) claim.
[§3.3, Eqs. (3) and (4)] The automatic weight-update mechanism is underspecified at a load-bearing point. The equations use net_j(t) without defining it, and the update principle introduces Delta I_alpha and Delta I_beta without specifying how the increment is computed. The 'local homomorphism' argument asserts (I_alpha + Delta I_alpha)^T M is approximately I_alpha^T M + Delta I_beta^T M, but no relation between Delta I_alpha and Delta I_beta is given, so the approximation is not derivable from the preceding definitions. Because automatic in-cloud update without communication is one of the paper's headline contributions, this gap is substantial.
[§3.2, Eq. (2)] The searching adversarial network is described only at a high level, and Eq. (2) is not connected to the described update procedure. The minimax objective in Eq. (2) is a standard GAN-style formulation, but the text says SAN 'only require simple residual calculations and index sorting floating steps' and gives no derivation of those steps from Eq. (2). There is also no convergence analysis and no argument that the 'optimal game equilibrium' is reached in the encrypted setting. This matters because the claim that cloud-side automatic updates preserve search quality depends on SAN behaving as described.
[§3.1 and Fig. 3] The experimental evaluation is not sufficient to support the claimed improvements. The only experiment uses a single small dataset (400 papers, 2,000 keywords), reports no numerical precision or recall values, gives no error bars or statistical tests, and does not measure communication or computation overhead despite those being central claims in the abstract. The caption mentions averaging 100 experimental results, but without the actual numbers and variance, the reader cannot assess whether the differences in Fig. 3 are meaningful.

minor comments (5)

[Author affiliation and abstract] There are typographical issues, such as 'Techno logy' in the affiliation and 'po ssible' in the abstract; a careful proofread is needed.
[§3.2, Eq. (2)] The variables x and y in Eq. (2) and the distributions pi(x) and pq(y) are not formally defined before the equation, which makes the objective hard to interpret.
[Table 1] The checkmark criteria such as 'high-precision query' and 'high-quality ranked search' are not quantitatively defined, so the comparison in Table 1 is difficult to verify.
[§3.3] The activation functions sgn and satlins are used without definition or reference, which is a barrier to reproducing the proposed update rules.
[§3.4] The phrase 'query-learning-update-learning-query self-attention loop' is vague and not tied to the self-attention mechanism in the cited reference [15].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the central probabilistic-ranking closeness is an unproven empirical assumption, not a result forced by the paper's own inputs.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain and found no step in which a prediction or claimed first-principles result reduces to its own inputs by construction. The closest candidate is Section 3.1's assertion that ranking index vectors by the sum of inner products with many uniform random queries is 'close to the ranking in the actual query.' That is an unproven modeling assumption, and the paper's own Fig. 3 caption concedes that precision varies with query popularity. However, this is a validity or correctness concern, not circularity: no parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed a prediction; the claimed O(log N) complexity is unsupported by any algorithmic or complexity analysis, but it is not derived from an assumption that already contains the conclusion. Equation (1) is a standard algebraic identity showing that the encryption scheme preserves inner products, and it is used as a design invariant rather than as an input that later reappears as the output. The adversarial and weight-update modules are described at a high level, but they do not import a prior result from the same authors or invoke a uniqueness theorem. There are no load-bearing self-citations, no fitted-input-called-prediction pattern, and no renaming of a known result as organization. The paper is benchmarked against external prior schemes, so its comparative claims are not self-referential. Thus the appropriate circularity score is 0, with the caveat that the paper's main assumption about probabilistic ranking is unsupported and should be examined under correctness risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The paper introduces two ad hoc assumptions without independent support: that random-query-based rankings approximate real-query rankings, and that ciphertext weights can be updated through a local homomorphism. The remaining assumptions are standard SE conventions or basic linear algebra. The absence of any formal analysis of these assumptions is the main source of the correctness risk.

free parameters (3)

sigma (scale of uniform random query distribution)
Introduced in Section 3.1 as X ~ U(-sigma*sqrt(3), sigma*sqrt(3)) for generating random queries; the choice of sigma is not justified and affects the ranking produced by the sorting network.
Number of random queries for probabilistic ranking
Section 3.1 invokes a sufficient amount of random queries with no count or stopping rule; the accuracy of the ranking and the claimed O(log N) behavior depend on this unspecified hyperparameter.
U_i (number of pseudo-keywords per dictionary)
In Setup, DO_i chooses U_i to pad index vectors for privacy; the value changes vector dimension and security but is not specified, and the experiment does not state what was used.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Inner-product similarity between query and index vectors is an appropriate relevance score for ranking.
The paper uses Score = I_i^T * Q_i (Eq. 1) inherited from MRSE-style schemes but provides no justification that this score retrieves documents the user considers relevant.
ad hoc to paper The sorted order of index vectors by sums of inner products with random queries approximates the order for real queries.
Section 3.1 asserts this closeness without proof; the Fig. 3 caption says precision varies with k because the probabilistic ranking is not strictly ordered.
ad hoc to paper Ciphertext index weights can be updated in the cloud with a local homomorphism that keeps inner products close to plaintext updates.
Section 3.3 derives an approximate equality for (I_alpha^T + delta I_alpha^T)M * M^-1 Q_gamma but never specifies how delta beta is computed or why the approximation holds for learned updates.
domain assumption The cloud server is semi-trusted in the known-background threat model.
Standard SE assumption taken from references [1,10,14]; the paper relies on it for the privacy argument but does not analyze leakage under the proposed update operations.
standard math Matrix encryption preserves the inner product.
Eq. 1 relies on M^T I * M^-1 Q = I^T Q; this is a standard linear-algebra property, stated correctly.

invented entities (3)

Searching adversarial network (SAN)
purpose: Adjust the probabilistic ranking toward the ranking observed in actual query results, using residual calculations and sorting floating steps.
The GAN-style objective in Eq. (2) is not connected to the described update, and no implementation or measurement of the module is provided.
Weight update network (WUN)
purpose: Automatically update encrypted index weights inside the cloud by combining BPNN and DHNN.
No concrete learning rule or network connectivity is specified; the equations show only a generic inner-product approximation, and the claimed cloud-side update is not evaluated.
Probabilistic ranking of encrypted index
purpose: A precomputed global ordering of index vectors used to answer queries with complexity close to O(log N).
The ranking is the core enabler of the efficiency claim, but it is only described conceptually; no algorithm for generating or querying it is given.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interpretable Encrypted Searchable Neural Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V4JH3PP6

@misc{pith2026190804998,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interpretable Encrypted Searchable Neural Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V4JH3PP6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04998}
}

abstract

In cloud security, traditional searchable encryption (SE) requires high computation and communication overhead for dynamic search and update. The clever combination of machine learning (ML) and SE may be a new way to solve this problem. This paper proposes interpretable encrypted searchable neural networks (IESNN) to explore probabilistic query, balanced index tree construction and automatic weight update in an encrypted cloud environment. In IESNN, probabilistic learning is used to obtain search ranking for searchable index, and probabilistic query is performed based on ciphertext index, which reduces the computational complexity of query significantly. Compared to traditional SE, it is proposed that adversarial learning and automatic weight update in response to user's timely query of the latest data set without expensive communication overhead. The proposed IESNN performs better than the previous works, bringing the query complexity closer to $O(\log N)$ and introducing low overhead on computation and communication.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04998 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The basic architecture of searchable encryption system 2.2 System Framework Setup: Based on privacy requirements in known background model [1], DOi determines the size Ni of dictionary Di , the number Ui of pseudo-keyword, sets the parameter Vi = Ui+Ni . For all data owners DO = {DO1,. . . ,DOm}, we have V = {V1,. . . ,Vm}, U = {U1,. . . ,Um}, N = {N1,. . . ,Nm}. KeyGen(V ): DO generate secret key SK = {SK1,. . . ,S… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Sorting network [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Performance testing of multiple query algorithms. {The query precision and search efficiency for different numbers of retrieved documents with the same document collection (400) and dictionary (2,000). It requires an average of 100 experimental results to measure performance of the following subjects: random unordered tree based on plaintext index(RU-Tree-PI) [3,13], probabilistic ordered tree based on plaintext ind… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Searching adversarial networks 3.3 Automatic Weight Update As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Weight update network Asynchronous work mode of WUN : The update task from SAN to WUN is only updating the weight of an index, while other indexes still retain their original weight. i.e. Ij (t + 1) = sgn[netj(t)], j = i Ij (t), j 6= i , Ij (t + 1) = satlins[netj(t…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The overall composition of IESNN 4 Discussion In this paper, we discuss the cross-fusion problem of ML and SE, and propose IESNN. We creatively combine popular ML with traditional SE, which is committed to exploring intelligent SE. We employ probabilistic learning met…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[1]

IEEE Trans

Cao, N., Wang, C., Li, M., Ren, K., Lou, W.: Privacy-preser ving multi-keyword ranked search over encrypted cloud data. IEEE Trans. Parall el Distrib. Syst. 25(1), 222–233 (2014)

work page 2014
[2]

CoRR abs/1406.2661 (2014)

Goodfellow, I.J., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., W arde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A.C., Bengio, Y.: Generative adversa rial networks. CoRR abs/1406.2661 (2014)

arXiv 2014
[3]

Journal of Systems and Soft- ware 137(3), 380–395 (2018)

Guo, Z., Zhang, H., Sun, C., Wen, Q., Li, W.: Secure multi-k eyword ranked search over encrypted cloud data for multiple data owners. Journal of Systems and Soft- ware 137(3), 380–395 (2018)

work page 2018
[4]

C ognitive Science 30(4), 725–731 (2006)

Hinton, G.E., Osindero, S., Welling, M., Teh, Y.W.: Unsup ervised discovery of nonlinear structure using contrastive backpropagation. C ognitive Science 30(4), 725–731 (2006)

work page 2006
[5]

Kumar, D.V.N.S., Thilagam, P.S.: Approaches and challen ges of privacy preserving search over encrypted data. Inf. Syst. 81, 63–81 (2019)

work page 2019
[6]

Future Generation C omp

Li, R., Xu, Z., Kang, W., Yow, K., Xu, C.: Eﬃcient multi-key word ranked query over encrypted data in cloud computing. Future Generation C omp. Syst. 30(1), 179–190 (2014)

work page 2014
[7]

IEEE Trans

Park, J.H., Kim, Y.S., Eom, I.K., Lee, K.Y.: Economic load dispatch for piecewise quadratic cost function using hopﬁeld neural network. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 8(3), 1030–1038 (1993)

work page 1993
[8]

In: IEEE S & P 2000

Song, D.X., Wagner, D.A., Perrig, A.: Practical techniqu es for searches on en- crypted data. In: IEEE S & P 2000. pp. 44–55. IEEE Computer Soc iety (2000)

work page 2000

Show all 15 references

[9]

: Veriﬁable privacy- preserving multi-keyword text search in the cloud supporti ng similarity-based rank- ing

Sun, W., Wang, B., Cao, N., Li, M., Lou, W., Hou, Y.T., Li, H. : Veriﬁable privacy- preserving multi-keyword text search in the cloud supporti ng similarity-based rank- ing. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 25(11), 3025–3035 (2014)

2014
[10]

In: INFOCOM 2010

Wang, C., Wang, Q., Ren, K., Lou, W.: Privacy-preserving public auditing for data storage security in cloud computing. In: INFOCOM 2010. pp. 5 25–533 (2010)

2010
[11]

Morgan Kaufmann ( 1999)

Witten, I.H., Moﬀat, A., Bell, T.C.: Managing Gigabytes : Compressing and Index- ing Documents and Images, Second Edition. Morgan Kaufmann ( 1999)

1999
[12]

In: ACM SIGMOD 2009

Wong, W.K., Cheung, D.W., Kao, B., Mamoulis, N.: Secure k nn computation on encrypted databases. In: ACM SIGMOD 2009. pp. 139–152. ACM ( 2009)

2009
[13]

IEEE Trans

Xia, Z., Wang, X., Sun, X., Wang, Q.: A secure and dynamic m ulti-keyword ranked search scheme over encrypted cloud data. IEEE Trans. Parall el Distrib. Syst. 27(2), 340–352 (2016)

2016
[14]

In: INFOCOM 2010

Yu, S., Wang, C., Ren, K., Lou, W.: Achieving secure, scal able, and ﬁne-grained data access control in cloud computing. In: INFOCOM 2010. pp . 534–542. IEEE (2010)

2010
[15]

In: ICML 2019

Zhang, H., Goodfellow, I.J., Metaxas, D.N., Odena, A.: S elf-attention generative adversarial networks. In: ICML 2019. pp. 7354–7363. PMLR (2 019)

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

IEEE Trans

Cao, N., Wang, C., Li, M., Ren, K., Lou, W.: Privacy-preser ving multi-keyword ranked search over encrypted cloud data. IEEE Trans. Parall el Distrib. Syst. 25(1), 222–233 (2014)

work page 2014

[2] [2]

CoRR abs/1406.2661 (2014)

Goodfellow, I.J., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., W arde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A.C., Bengio, Y.: Generative adversa rial networks. CoRR abs/1406.2661 (2014)

arXiv 2014

[3] [3]

Journal of Systems and Soft- ware 137(3), 380–395 (2018)

Guo, Z., Zhang, H., Sun, C., Wen, Q., Li, W.: Secure multi-k eyword ranked search over encrypted cloud data for multiple data owners. Journal of Systems and Soft- ware 137(3), 380–395 (2018)

work page 2018

[4] [4]

C ognitive Science 30(4), 725–731 (2006)

Hinton, G.E., Osindero, S., Welling, M., Teh, Y.W.: Unsup ervised discovery of nonlinear structure using contrastive backpropagation. C ognitive Science 30(4), 725–731 (2006)

work page 2006

[5] [5]

Kumar, D.V.N.S., Thilagam, P.S.: Approaches and challen ges of privacy preserving search over encrypted data. Inf. Syst. 81, 63–81 (2019)

work page 2019

[6] [6]

Future Generation C omp

Li, R., Xu, Z., Kang, W., Yow, K., Xu, C.: Eﬃcient multi-key word ranked query over encrypted data in cloud computing. Future Generation C omp. Syst. 30(1), 179–190 (2014)

work page 2014

[7] [7]

IEEE Trans

Park, J.H., Kim, Y.S., Eom, I.K., Lee, K.Y.: Economic load dispatch for piecewise quadratic cost function using hopﬁeld neural network. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 8(3), 1030–1038 (1993)

work page 1993

[8] [8]

In: IEEE S & P 2000

Song, D.X., Wagner, D.A., Perrig, A.: Practical techniqu es for searches on en- crypted data. In: IEEE S & P 2000. pp. 44–55. IEEE Computer Soc iety (2000)

work page 2000