Mining frequent itemsets in the presence of malicious participants
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Privacy preserving data mining (PPDM) algorithms attempt to reduce the injuries to privacy caused by malicious parties during the rule mining process. Usually, these algorithms are designed for the semi-honest model, where participants do not deviate from the protocol. However, in the real-world, malicious parties may attempt to obtain the secret values of other parties by probing attacks or collusion. In this study, the authors study how to preserve the privacy of participants in a collusion-free model of the frequent itemset mining process, where the protocol protects against probing attacks and collusion. The mining of frequent itemsets is the main step of association rule mining algorithms, and, in this study, the authors propose two privacy-preserving frequent itemset mining algorithms for both two-party and multi-party states in a collusion-free model for vertically partitioned (heterogeneous) data; in addition, a privacy measuring technique is proposed, which quantifies privacy based on the amount of disclosed sensitive information.
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.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| 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 it