lmdk-expt: New results and discussion
This commit is contained in:
		
							
								
								
									
										
											BIN
										
									
								
								graphics/copenhagen.pdf
									
									
									
									
									
										Normal file
									
								
							
							
						
						
									
										
											BIN
										
									
								
								graphics/copenhagen.pdf
									
									
									
									
									
										Normal file
									
								
							
										
											Binary file not shown.
										
									
								
							
										
											Binary file not shown.
										
									
								
							
										
											Binary file not shown.
										
									
								
							@ -14,28 +14,41 @@ Whereas, when each timestamp corresponds to a {\thething} we consider and protec
 | 
			
		||||
 | 
			
		||||
 | 
			
		||||
\subsection{Experiments}
 | 
			
		||||
\label{sec:lmdk-expt}
 | 
			
		||||
 | 
			
		||||
\paragraph{Budget allocation schemes}
 | 
			
		||||
\subsubsection{Budget allocation schemes}
 | 
			
		||||
 | 
			
		||||
Figure~\ref{fig:real} exhibits the performance of the three mechanisms: Skip, Uniform, and Adaptive.
 | 
			
		||||
 | 
			
		||||
\begin{figure}[htp]
 | 
			
		||||
  \centering
 | 
			
		||||
  \subcaptionbox{Geolife\label{fig:geolife}}{%
 | 
			
		||||
    \includegraphics[width=.5\linewidth]{geolife}%
 | 
			
		||||
  \subcaptionbox{Copenhagen\label{fig:copenhagen}}{%
 | 
			
		||||
    \includegraphics[width=.5\linewidth]{copenhagen}%
 | 
			
		||||
  }%
 | 
			
		||||
  \hspace{\fill}
 | 
			
		||||
  \subcaptionbox{HUE\label{fig:hue}}{%
 | 
			
		||||
    \includegraphics[width=.5\linewidth]{hue}%
 | 
			
		||||
  }%
 | 
			
		||||
  \subcaptionbox{T-drive\label{fig:t-drive}}{%
 | 
			
		||||
    \includegraphics[width=.5\linewidth]{t-drive}%
 | 
			
		||||
  }%
 | 
			
		||||
  \caption{The mean absolute error (in meters) of the released data for different {\thethings} percentages.}
 | 
			
		||||
  \caption{The mean absolute error (a)~as a percentage, (b)~in kWh, and (c)~in meters of the released data for different {\thethings} percentages.}
 | 
			
		||||
  \label{fig:real}
 | 
			
		||||
\end{figure}
 | 
			
		||||
 | 
			
		||||
For the Geolife data set (Figure~\ref{fig:geolife}), Skip has the best performance (measured in Mean Absolute Error, in meters) because it invests the most budget overall at every regular event, by approximating the {\thething} data based on previous releases.
 | 
			
		||||
Due to the data set's high density (every $1$--$5$ seconds or every $5$--$10$ meters per point) approximating constantly has a low impact on the data utility.
 | 
			
		||||
On the contrary, the lower density of the T-drive data set (Figure~\ref{fig:t-drive}) has a negative impact on the performance of Skip.
 | 
			
		||||
In the T-drive data set, the Adaptive mechanism outperforms the Uniform one by $10$\%--$20$\% for all {\thethings} percentages greater than $0$ and by more than $20$\% the Skip one.
 | 
			
		||||
In general, we can claim that the Adaptive is the best performing mechanism, if we take into consideration the drawbacks of the Skip mechanism mentioned in Section~\ref{subsec:lmdk-mechs}. Moreover, designing a data-dependent sampling scheme would possibly result in better results for Adaptive.
 | 
			
		||||
% For the Geolife data set (Figure~\ref{fig:geolife}), Skip has the best performance (measured in Mean Absolute Error, in meters) because it invests the most budget overall at every regular event, by approximating the {\thething} data based on previous releases.
 | 
			
		||||
% Due to the data set's high density (every $1$--$5$ seconds or every $5$--$10$ meters per point) approximating constantly has a low impact on the data utility.
 | 
			
		||||
% On the contrary, the lower density of the T-drive data set (Figure~\ref{fig:t-drive}) has a negative impact on the performance of Skip.
 | 
			
		||||
For the Copenhagen data set (Figure~\ref{fig:copenhagen}), Adaptive has a constant overall performance and performs best for $0$, $60$, and $80$\% {\thethings}.
 | 
			
		||||
The Skip model excels, compared to the others, at cases where it needs to approximate a lot ($100$\%).
 | 
			
		||||
The combination of the low range in HUE ($[0.28$, $4.45]$ with an average of $0.88$kWh) and the large scale in the Laplace mechanism results in a low mean absolute error for Skip(Figure~\ref{fig:hue}).
 | 
			
		||||
In general, a scheme that favors approximation over noise injection would achieve a better performance in this case.
 | 
			
		||||
However, the Adaptive model performs by far better than Uniform and strikes a nice balance between event- and user-level protection for all {\thethings} percentages.
 | 
			
		||||
In the T-drive data set (Figure~\ref{fig:t-drive}), the Adaptive mechanism outperforms the Uniform one by $10$\%--$20$\% for all {\thethings} percentages greater than $40$ and by more than $20$\% the Skip one.
 | 
			
		||||
The lower density (average distance of $623$ meters) of the T-drive data set has a negative impact on the performance of Skip.
 | 
			
		||||
 | 
			
		||||
In general, we can claim that the Adaptive is the most reliable and best performing mechanism with minimal tuning, if we take into consideration the drawbacks of the Skip mechanism mentioned in Section~\ref{subsec:lmdk-mechs}.
 | 
			
		||||
Moreover, designing a data-dependent sampling scheme would possibly result in better results for Adaptive.
 | 
			
		||||
 | 
			
		||||
 | 
			
		||||
\paragraph{Temporal distance and correlation}
 | 
			
		||||
 | 
			
		||||
		Reference in New Issue
	
	Block a user