2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.dss.2006.08.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dare to share: Protecting sensitive knowledge with data sanitization

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
61
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 110 publications
(63 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
61
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We compared the proposed approach with the "Hybrid" method in [3] and the "SIF-IDF" method in [4]. NSGA-II [9] was used as the selector of EMO.…”
Section: Performance Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We compared the proposed approach with the "Hybrid" method in [3] and the "SIF-IDF" method in [4]. NSGA-II [9] was used as the selector of EMO.…”
Section: Performance Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More methods were created based on the relation between transactions and sensitive or non-sensitive frequent itemsets. For instance, Amiri [3] proposed three heuristic algorithms which select transactions and items for sanitization in terms of sensitive itemsets and non-sensitive itemsets related. Hong et al [4] devised an itemset hiding method by using the concept of TF-IDF (Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency) in text mining.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The algorithm in (Oliveira and Zaiane, 2003b), called SWA, is an efficient, scalable, one-scan heuristic which aims at providing a balance between the needs for privacy and knowledge discovery in association rule hiding. Three effective, multiple association rule hiding heuristic algorithms are proposed by (Amiri, 2007) and shown that they outperform SWA by offering higher data utility and lower distortion. Five heuristic algorithms based on two strategies are proposed in (Verykios et al, 2004); first approach prevents rules from being generated, by hiding the frequent sets from which they are derived whereas the second approach reduces the importance of the rules by setting their confidence below a user-specified threshold.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to combinatorial nature of the problem of itemset hiding, proposed sanitization methodologies span from simple, time and memory efficient heuristics (Oliveira and Zaiane, 2002) (Oliveira and Zaiane, 2003a) (Verykios et al, 2004) (Amiri, 2007) (Wu et al, 2007) (Keer and Singh, 2012) (Yildiz and Ergenc, 2012), border-based approaches (Sun and Yu, 2005) (Sun and Yu, 2007) (Moustakides and Verykios, 2008) and reconstruction based approaches (Mielikainen, 2003) (Guo, 2007) (Lin and Liu, 2007) (Boora et al, 2009) (Mohaisen et al, 2010) to exact hiding (Menon et al, 2005) (Gkoulalas-Divanis and Verykios, 2006) (Gkoulalas-Divanis and Verykios, 2008) (Gkoulalas-Divanis andVerykios, 2009b) algorithms that offer guarantees on the quality of the computed hiding solution at an increased computational complexity cost. Whatever the technique used in sanitiza-tion; different attributes are used in selecting the transaction, itemset in the transaction or the item in the itemset to modify.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This technique involves some kind of information loss or data distortion, therefore not suitable for manufactory and management in industrial context. The data sanitisation process is discussed in [8]. In this process, a hybrid approach is recommended by Amiri.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%