Zero-Knowledge Audience Analytics: Privacy-Preserving Consumer Segmentation and Attribution for Cross-Platform Digital Advertising Networks
Keywords:
zero-knowledge proofs, privacy-preserving analytics, consumer segmentation, attribution, cross-platform advertising, secure multi-party computation, differential privacy, governance, fairness, digital advertising networksAbstract
The digital advertising ecosystem is increasingly reliant on cross-platform audience analytics to enable consumer segmentation and attribution across heterogeneous media environments. However, these practices pose significant privacy risks, as they typically involve the aggregation, transfer, and analysis of personally identifiable information or behavioral data without robust guarantees of individual confidentiality. This paper proposes a comprehensive framework for zero-knowledge audience analytics, integrating cryptographic protocols with systemic design principles to achieve privacy-preserving consumer segmentation and attribution for cross-platform digital advertising networks. We examine the architectural trade-offs inherent in deploying zero-knowledge proofs, secure multi-party computation, and differential privacy within large-scale advertising infrastructures. Emphasis is placed on the structural interplay between data providers, advertisers, and platform intermediaries, with consideration of governance mechanisms that enforce compliance without sacrificing analytical utility. The paper further explores the sustainability and robustness of such systems under adversarial conditions, including collusion, data poisoning, and inference attacks. Fairness implications are discussed in relation to demographic bias in segmentation algorithms and the equitable distribution of attribution credit. Policy and regulatory dimensions are analyzed in the context of emerging frameworks such as the General Data Protection Regulation and the California Consumer Privacy Act, with attention to the role of compliance-by-design micro-licensing and content provenance standards. A forward-looking perspective is offered on the integration of zero-knowledge analytics with trusted AI commercialization infrastructures and layered safety intervention mechanisms. The proposed framework aims to reconcile the competing demands of measurement accuracy, operational efficiency, and individual privacy, offering a pathway toward a more trustworthy and sustainable digital advertising economy.
References
1. Acs, G., & Castelluccia, C. (2011). I have a DREAM! (DiffeRentially privatE smArt Metering). In Information Hiding (pp. 118-132). Springer.
2. Evans, D., Kolesnikov, V., & Rosulek, M. (2018). A pragmatic introduction to secure multi-party computation. Foundations and Trends in Privacy and Security, 2(2-3), 70-246.
3. Kolesnikov, V., & Schneider, T. (2008). Improved garbled circuit: Free XOR gates and applications. In Proceedings of the 35th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (pp. 486-498). Springer.
4. Ben-Sasson, E., Chiesa, A., Genkin, D., Tromer, E., & Virza, M. (2013). SNARKs for C: Verifying program executions succinctly and in zero knowledge. In Advances in Cryptology – CRYPTO 2013 (pp. 90-108). Springer.
5. Dwork, C., Roth, A., et al. (2014). The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy. Foundations and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science, 9(3-4), 211-407.
6. Camenisch, J., & Lysyanskaya, A. (2001). An efficient system for non-transferable anonymous credentials with optional anonymity revocation. In Advances in Cryptology – EUROCRYPT 2001 (pp. 93-118). Springer.
7. Shi, C., Li, S., Lu, W., Wu, W., Wang, C., Cheng, Z., ... & Chua, T. S. (2026). TraceRouter: Robust Safety for Large Foundation Models via Path-Level Intervention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.21900.
8. Kohavi, R., Longbotham, R., Sommerfield, D., & Henne, R. M. (2009). Controlled experiments on the web: Survey and practical guide. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 18(1), 140-181.
9. Zhou, D. (2026). AI-Driven Hybrid SAST–DAST–SCA–IAST Framework for Risk-Based Vulnerability Prioritization in Microservice Architectures.
10. Bonawitz, K., Ivanov, V., Kreuter, B., Marcedone, A., McMahan, H. B., Patel, S., ... & Seth, K. (2017). Practical secure aggregation for privacy-preserving machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (pp. 1175-1191). ACM.
11. Goldwasser, S., Micali, S., & Rackoff, C. (1989). The knowledge complexity of interactive proof systems. SIAM Journal on Computing, 18(1), 186-208.
12. Acquisti, A., Taylor, C., & Wagman, L. (2016). The economics of privacy. Journal of Economic Literature, 54(2), 442-492.
13. Nissenbaum, H. (2010). Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford University Press.
14. Toubiana, V., Narayanan, A., Boneh, D., Nissenbaum, H., & Barocas, S. (2010). Adnostic: Privacy preserving targeted advertising. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS). The Internet Society.
15. Barocas, S., & Selbst, A. D. (2016). Big data's disparate impact. California Law Review, 104(3), 671-732.
16. Erlingsson, Ú., Pihur, V., & Korolova, A. (2014). Rappor: Randomized aggregatable privacy-preserving ordinal response. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (pp. 1054-1067). ACM.
17. Gentry, C. (2009). Fully homomorphic encryption using ideal lattices. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (pp. 169-178). ACM.
18. Fredrikson, M., Jha, S., & Ristenpart, T. (2015). Model inversion attacks that exploit confidence information and basic countermeasures. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (pp. 1322-1333). ACM.
19. Culnane, C., Rubinstein, B. I. P., & Teague, V. (2017). Verifiable computations in micropayments. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security (pp. 205-224). Springer.
20. Jagielski, M., Oprea, A., Biggio, B., Liu, C., Nita-Rotaru, C., & Li, B. (2018). Manipulating machine learning: Poisoning attacks and countermeasures for regression learning. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (pp. 19-35). IEEE.
21. Dankar, F. K., & El Emam, K. (2013). A method for evaluating marketer re-identification risk. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Workshop on Data Privacy Management (pp. 48-63). Springer.
22. Li, N., Qardaji, W., & Su, D. (2012). On sampling, anonymization, and differential privacy or, k-anonymization meets differential privacy. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM Symposium on Information, Computer and Communications Security (pp. 32-33). ACM.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Data Intelligence and AI Systems
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
