MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311626312 · doi:10.1007/s40747-022-00917-0

An efficient privacy-preserving point-of-interest recommendation model based on local differential privacy

2022· article· en· W4311626312 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueComplex & Intelligent Systems · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
FundersNational Social Science Fund of China
KeywordsComputer sciencePoint of interestData miningDifferential privacyRecommender systemConstruct (python library)Point (geometry)Feature (linguistics)Information retrievalSimilarity (geometry)Machine learningArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract With the rapid development of point-of-interest (POI) recommendation services, how to utilize the multiple types of users’ information safely and effectively for a better recommendation is challenging. To solve the problems of imperfect privacy-preserving mechanism and insufficient response-ability to complex contexts, this paper proposes a hybrid POI recommendation model based on local differential privacy (LDP). Firstly, we introduce randomized response techniques k -RR and RAPPOR to disturb users’ ratings and social relationships, respectively and propose a virtual check-in time generation method to deal with the issue of missing check-in time after disturbance. Secondly, for simultaneously combining multiple types of information, we construct a hybrid model containing three sub-models. Sub-model 1 considers the effect of user preference, social relationship, forgetting feature, and check-in trajectory on similarity calculation. Sub-model 2 analyzes the geographical correlation of POIs. Sub-model 3 focuses on the categories of POIs. Finally, we generate the recommendation results. To test the performance of privacy-preserving and recommendation, we design three groups of experiments on three real-world datasets for comprehensive verifying. The experimental results show that the proposed method outperforms existing methods. Theoretically, our study contributes to the effective and safe usage of multidimensional data science and analytics for privacy-preserving POI recommender system design. Practically, our findings can be used to improve the quality of POI recommendation services.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science
Consensus categoriesOpen science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0360.060
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.119
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.198 · 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