evaluation: Added sel-eps
This commit is contained in:
parent
a4dd1175e1
commit
42f7891dfd
BIN
graphics/evaluation/copenhagen-sel-eps.pdf
Normal file
BIN
graphics/evaluation/copenhagen-sel-eps.pdf
Normal file
Binary file not shown.
Binary file not shown.
BIN
graphics/evaluation/hue-sel-eps.pdf
Normal file
BIN
graphics/evaluation/hue-sel-eps.pdf
Normal file
Binary file not shown.
@ -33,6 +33,35 @@ While both methods share the same mean normalized distance of $0.4$, the Euclide
|
||||
Therefore, we choose to utilize the Euclidean distance metric for the implementation of the privacy-preserving {\thething} selection in Section~\ref{subsec:lmdk-sel-sol}.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Privacy budget tuning}
|
||||
\label{subsec:sel-eps}
|
||||
|
||||
In Figure~\ref{fig:sel-eps} we test the Uniform model in real data by investing different ratios ($1$\%, $10$\%, $25$\%, and $50$\%) of the available privacy budget $\varepsilon$ in the {\thething} selection mechanism, in order to figure out the optimal ratio value.
|
||||
Uniform is our baseline implementation, and hence allows us to derive more accurate conclusions in this case.
|
||||
In general, greater ratios will result in more accurate, i.e.,~smaller, {\thething} sets and less accurate values in the released data sets.
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{figure}[htp]
|
||||
\centering
|
||||
\subcaptionbox{Copenhagen\label{fig:copenhagen-sel-eps}}{%
|
||||
\includegraphics[width=.5\linewidth]{evaluation/copenhagen-sel-eps}%
|
||||
}%
|
||||
\hspace{\fill}
|
||||
\\ \bigskip
|
||||
\subcaptionbox{HUE\label{fig:hue-sel-eps}}{%
|
||||
\includegraphics[width=.5\linewidth]{evaluation/hue-sel-eps}%
|
||||
}%
|
||||
\subcaptionbox{T-drive\label{fig:t-drive-sel-eps}}{%
|
||||
\includegraphics[width=.5\linewidth]{evaluation/t-drive-sel-eps}%
|
||||
}%
|
||||
\caption{The mean absolute error (a)~as a percentage, (b)~in kWh, and (c)~in meters of the released data for different {\thething} percentages. We apply the Uniform {\thething} privacy model and vary the ratio of the privacy budget $\varepsilon$ that we allocate to the {\thething} selection component.}
|
||||
\label{fig:sel-eps}
|
||||
\end{figure}
|
||||
|
||||
The application of the randomized response mechanism, in the Copenhagen data set, is tolerant to the fluctuations of the privacy budget.
|
||||
For HUE and T-drive, we observe that our implementation performs better for lower ratios, e.g.,~$0.01$, where we end up allocating the majority of the available privacy budget to the data release process instead of the {\thething} selection component.
|
||||
The results of this experiment indicate that we can safely allocate the majority of $\varepsilon$ for publishing the data values, and therefore achieve better data utility, while providing more robust privacy protection to the {\thething} timestamp set.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Budget allocation and {\thething} selection}
|
||||
\label{subsec:sel-prv}
|
||||
|
||||
@ -44,6 +73,7 @@ Figure~\ref{fig:real-sel} exhibits the performance of Skip, Uniform, and Adaptiv
|
||||
\includegraphics[width=.5\linewidth]{evaluation/copenhagen-sel}%
|
||||
}%
|
||||
\hspace{\fill}
|
||||
\\ \bigskip
|
||||
\subcaptionbox{HUE\label{fig:hue-sel}}{%
|
||||
\includegraphics[width=.5\linewidth]{evaluation/hue-sel}%
|
||||
}%
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user