Foundations for an access control model for privacy preservation in multi-relational association rule mining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent data mining algorithms have been designed for application domains that involve several types of objects stored in multiple relations in relational databases. This fact has motivated the increasing number of successful applications of relational data mining over recent years. On the other hand, such applications have introduced a new threat to privacy and information security since from non-sensitive data one is able to infer sensitive information, including personal information, facts or even patterns that are not supposed to be disclosed. The existing access control models adopted to successfully manage the access of information in complex systems present some limitations in the context of data mining tasks. The main reason is that such models were designed to protect the access to explicit data (e.g. tables, attributes, views, etc), whereas data mining tasks deal with the discovery of implicit data (e.g. patterns) . In this paper, we take a first step toward an access control model for ensuring privacy in relational data mining, notably in multi-relational association rules (MRAR). In this model, users associated with different mining access levels, even using the same algorithm, are allowed to mine different sets of association rules. We provide the groundwork to build our access control model over existing technologies and discuss some directions for future work.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".