MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125277560 · doi:10.1109/ares.2008.193

Experimental Demonstration of a Hybrid Privacy-Preserving Recommender System

2008· article· en· W2125277560 on OpenAlexaff
Esma Aı̈meur, Gilles Brassard, José M. Fernandez, Flavien Serge Mani Onana, Zbigniew Rakowski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecommender systemComputer scienceRealization (probability)Collaborative filteringPrivacy protectionInformation privacyOriginalityComputer securityInternet privacyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recommender systems enable merchants to assist customers in finding products that best satisfy their needs. Unfortunately, current recommender systems suffer from various privacy-protection vulnerabilities. We report on the first experimental realization of a theoretical framework called ALAMBIC, which we had previously put forth to protect the privacy of customers and the commercial interests of merchants. Our system is a hybrid recommender that combines content-based, demographic and collaborative filtering techniques. The originality of our approach is to split customer data between the merchant and a semi-trusted third party, so that neither can derive sensitive information from their share alone. Therefore, the system can only be subverted by a coalition between these two parties. Experimental results confirm that the performance and user-friendliness of the application need not suffer from the adoption of such privacy-protection solutions. Furthermore, user testing of our prototype show that users react positively to the privacy model proposed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpam and Phishing DetectionFrench-language works237,207