Achieving Microaggregation for Secure Statistical Databases Using Fixed-Structure Partitioning-Based Learning Automata
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the microaggregation problem (MAP) that involves partitioning a set of individual records in a microdata file into a number of mutually exclusive and exhaustive groups. This problem, which seeks for the best partition of the microdata file, is known to be NP-hard and has been tackled using many heuristic solutions. In this paper, we present the first reported fixed-structure-stochastic-automata-based solution to this problem. The newly proposed method leads to a lower value of the information loss (IL), obtains a better tradeoff between the IL and the disclosure risk (DR) when compared with state-of-the-art methods, and leads to a superior value of the scoring index, which is a criterion involving a combination of the IL and the DR. The scheme has been implemented, tested, and evaluated for different real-life and simulated data sets. The results clearly demonstrate the applicability of learning automata to the MAP and its ability to yield a solution that obtains the best tradeoff between IL and DR when compared with the state of the art.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".