I have manually scraped multiple pages of search results on Google and haven't found a single suggestion as to how to find an optimal k when you are trying to "k-anonymize" your dataset. All I can find is the obvious fact that "higher k = more security but more loss of information", but not a single idea is given as to how to tackle this problem.

Shouldn't a k of 2 suffice (as long as an l-diversity of at least l=2 is given)? Or should we go as high as 15, 20, 30, 100? I am fairly new to this topic and online materials offer no intuition whatsoever.

Do you know of any publicly available guidelines by organizations/companies/universities which discuss what value k to choose? Or any other resource?

  • Please edit your question to include relative sizes, and what it is that you're anonymising. Assume k=2 and n=3 ... is this sufficient?
    – brynk
    Commented Mar 17, 2021 at 15:58
  • I am not looking to anonymize anything in particular at the moment, just looking for a general framework/procedure to identify a good k-value.
    – Denny
    Commented Mar 17, 2021 at 16:37

1 Answer 1


The appropriate privacy level is entirely context dependent. Clearly k=1 and k=n are generally useless (for a data set of size n). One provides no anonymity, the other does not retain any utility (other than about very basic info like the size of the data set). But there could be interesting values in between.

In this anonymity vs utility tradeoff, an appropriate privacy level can be bounded from either direction:

  • given a certain analysis that should remain possible with the anonymized data set, what is the maximum k we can tolerate?

  • given the privacy guarantees we'd like to make, what is the minimum k we require?

For example, lets consider the k-anonymity model implemented by the “Have I Been Pwned?” API. To check whether your password is compromised, you can send a truncated password hash and get back a list of full hashes of compromised passwords. The number of compromised passwords per prefix corresponds to the privacy level k in a k-anonymity model.

Here, an upper bound on k is given through the size of the list of hashes returned in a response. This list should be as small as possible to keep the API efficient. A reasonable upper bound would be somewhere in the kilobyte range, indicating k<2000. A lower bound is given through privacy/security requirements. Given a known-compromised password, neither the API nor any eavesdropper should be able to reliably determine for which compromised password the truncated hash had been sent. There is no clear safe lower bound since any query necessarily leaks some information. However, k<10 is clearly unsafe, and k<100 might still allow a malicious API provider to guess the true password with a reasonably good probability. This leaves a range of 100 ≤ k ≤ 2000 that could be appropriate for this use case.

In reality, HIPB uses a level of k≈500 [1, 2], though with additional padding to prevent further information leaks.

This is a very high k-anonymity level, motivated by the quite severe security impact of leaking passwords. In other contexts, a far lower k will be appropriate. E.g. basic demographic data is far less sensitive, and would likely have an appropriate level around 5 ≤ k ≤ 20. In many domains, a low k is implicitly required due to small size of available data sets – with the only reasonable alternative being to not disclose too sensitive data at all.

It should be noted that k-anonymity and related methods alone do not achieve very strong privacy guarantees at any k, and that the required redaction or abstraction of data is detrimental to many uses. In some scenarios, a probabilistic approach as in differential privacy can be more appropriate.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .