An evolutionary computation‐based privacy‐preserving data mining model under a multithreshold constraint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Privacy‐preserving data mining (PPDM) is a popular research topic in the data mining field. For individual information protection, it is vital to protect sensitive information during data mining procedures. Furthermore, it is also a serious offense to spill sensitive private knowledge. Recently, many PPDM data mining algorithms have been proposed to conceal sensitive items in a given database to disclose high‐frequency items. These recent methods have already proven to be excellent in protecting confidential information and maintaining the integrity of the input database. All prior techniques, however, ignored a crucial problem in setting minimum support thresholds. If a sensitive itemset includes more items, it will cause it the become more likely to be found. Before performing mining processes, a fixed value of the minimum support threshold will be set. In this paper, a new concept of minimal support for solving this issue is proposed. In compliance with a given threshold function, the proposed approach would set a tighter threshold for an object containing several items. The results of the experiments show the performance of the traditional Greedy PPDM approach, Genetic algorithm (GA)‐based PPDM approaches, and the proposed particle swarm optimization‐based algorithm with the new minimal support function. The results show that the proposed method performs similarly to conventional algorithms and offers higher protection than previous methods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".