The original paper on k -anonymity defined k-anonymity: A table provides k -anon
ID: 3685531 • Letter: T
Question
The original paper on k -anonymity defined k-anonymity:
A table provides k -anonymity if attempts to link explicitly identifying information to its contents ambiguously map the information to at least k entities.
A later paper defined k-anonymity slightly differently: Each release of data must be such that every combination of values of quasi-identifiers can be indistinctly matched to at least k individuals.
1) Are these definitions the same? If the same, prove it (that is, show definition 1 implies definition
2 and vice versa). If different, give an example of a table/database that satisfies one definition but not the other.
Explanation / Answer
The original paper on k -anonymity defined k-anonymity: A table provides k -anonymity if attempts to link explicitly identifying information to its contents ambiguously map the information to at least k entities. A later paper defined k-anonymity slightly differently: Each release of data must be such that every combination of values of quasi-identifiers can be indistinctly matched to at least k individuals.
1) These definitions the same
K – Anonymity approach: each release of data must be such that every combination of values of quasi-identifiers can be indistinctly matched to at least K responds.
As each respondent is assumed to be represented by at most one tuple in the table and vice versa.
(Each tuble includes information related to one respondent only), a microdata table satisfies the k-anonymity requirement if and only if:
1. Each tuple in the released table cannot be related to less K individuals in the population.
2. Each individual in the population cannot be related to less than K tuples in the table.
Where some of the quasi identifier fields are suppressed or generalized. A table satisfies k anonymity if every record in the table is indistinguishable from at least k -1 other record with respect to every set of quasi-identifier attributes. Such a table is called a k anonymous table.
For Example:
A key step in extracting the semantics of Web content is entity linking (EL): the task of mapping a phrase in text to its referent entity in a knowledge base (KB).
We present TabEL , a new EL system for Web tables.
The assumption that the semantics of a table can be mapped to pre-defined types and relations found in the target KB. Instead, TabEL enforces soft constraints in the form of a graphical model that assigns higher likelihood to sets of entities that tend to co-occur in Wikipedia documents and tables.
We present TabEL, a system that performs the Entity Linking task on phrases in cells of Web tables. Existing table semantic interpretation systems typically employ graphical models to jointly model three semantic interpretation tasks: entity linking, column type identification and relation extraction from tables
1. Entity linking (EL): the task of finding phrases of text, called mentions, in cells and associating each with its referent entity
2. Column type identification: the task of associating a column in a table with the KB type of entities it contains
3. Relation extraction: the task of associating a pair of columns in a table with the KB relation that holds between each pair of entities in a given row of the columns
Given a table T and a KB K of entities, the entity linking task is to identify and link each potential mention in cells of T to its referent entity e 2 K.
Given a table T and a KB K, TabEL performs the EL task in three steps:
1. Mention identification: identifies each potential mention, in cells of T
2. Entity candidate generation: for each potential mention, identifies a set of candidate entities, C- a subset of entities in K that are possible referents.
3. Disambiguation: for each potential mention ms, as the referent entity of ms, based on its context.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.