SMASH 2026 · Paper #13 · Result card

Privacy-Preserving Text Inference for Health-Misinformation Classification and Semantic Retrieval

Jasleen Kaur, Chloe Cachet, Koray Karabina, Jean Belo Klamti, Philippe Lamontagne · National Research Council of Canada · Florida Atlantic University · Read the paper

All 1,080 encrypted predictions matched plaintext. Accuracy 0.944, macro-F1 0.896 on CoAID; SIMD packing made encrypted retrieval 26 times faster.
claims 6 of yoursfeatures hybrid (556-d)text title+contentSVD dims 300CKKS ring N 8,192seed 42
CoAID test (1,080 items)
0.944 / 0.896
accuracy / macro-F1, hybrid features (556-d); paper hybrid 0.971 / 0.950
Encrypted = plaintext
1,080 / 1,080
identical labels; max logit error 6.0e-06
Your claims flagged “fake”
3 / 6
scored without the server ever seeing the text
SIMD packing speed-up
26×
33.9 s → 1.28 s over 5,168 items (paper 42.6×)

From the abstract

We design a privacy-preserving text inference framework based on CKKS homomorphic encryption for health-misinformation classification and semantic retrieval. The hybrid classifier achieved an accuracy of 0.971 and a macro-F1 score of 0.950, with identical reported metrics under plaintext and ciphertext-based inference.

Evidence

Your claims, scored on ciphertext
Your claims, scored on ciphertext
Bars: the model's probability that a claim resembles CoAID's “fake” class, computed in the clear. Diamonds: the same probability from the encrypted score the server returned (client decrypts, applies the sigmoid). |Δz| = logit difference.
What the classifier actually keys on
What the classifier actually keys on
Exact term weights obtained by pushing the logistic-regression weights back through the scaler and SVD. Many cues are about source and format (fact-check phrasing vs agency article titles), not medical truth.
What encryption costs
What encryption costs
Left: median time per encrypted claim (encrypt + server dot product + decrypt) by CKKS ring size; the paper uses N = 32,768. Right: encrypted similarity search returning one ciphertext per item (naive) vs all scores packed into one ciphertext.

Paper vs. your run

MetricPaperYour run
Acc / macro-F1: TF-IDF (paper) vs TF-IDF→SVD3000.942 / 0.9040.944 / 0.895same recipe
Acc / macro-F1: MPNet (paper) vs potion-base-8M (256-d)0.938 / 0.8990.928 / 0.866no BioBERT block; MPNet replaced by a static embedder
Acc / macro-F1: Full hybrid (paper) vs TF-IDF→SVD + potion (556-d)0.971 / 0.950.944 / 0.896no BioBERT block; MPNet replaced by a static embedder
Test split1,081 samples (184 fake, 897 real)1,080 (183 fake)deduplicated CoAID news, title+content
Plaintext vs ciphertext predictionsidentical accuracy and F1 scores for every feature configuration1080/1080 labels identicalN = 8,192
Per-query cost at N = 32,768approximately 122.4 ms and 2.133 MB149.2 ms, 2.24 MB556-d vs 1,324-d vector; different CPU
Retrieval naive → SIMD-packed221.049 s → 5.186 s (42.6×), 6.11 GB → 2.13 MB33.9 s → 1.28 s (26×), 0.68 GB → 0.50 MB5,168 items, 256-d, N = 8,192; naive extrapolated from 200

Try next

Read this before sharing