Edge Deletion based Subgraph Hiding
Author:
Tekin Leyla1, Bostanoglu Belgin Ergenc1
Affiliation:
1. Department of Computer Engineering, Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, TURKEY
Abstract
Extracting subgraphs from graph data is a challenging and important subgraph mining task since they reveal valuable insights in many domains. However, in the data sharing scenario, some of the subgraphs might be considered as sensitive by the data owner and require hiding before publishing the data. Therefore, subgraph hiding is applied to the data so that when subgraph mining algorithms, such as frequent subgraph mining, subgraph counting, or subgraph matching, are executed on this published data, sensitive subgraphs will not appear. While protecting the privacy of the sensitive subgraphs through hiding, the side effects should be kept at a minimum. In this paper, we address the problem of hiding sensitive subgraphs on graph data and propose an Edge deletion-based heuristic (EDH) algorithm. We evaluate our algorithm using three graph datasets and compare the results with the previous vertex masking heuristic algorithms in terms of execution time and side effects in the context of frequent subgraph hiding. The experimental results demonstrate that the EDH is competitive concerning execution time and outperforms the existing masking heuristic algorithms in terms of side effects by reducing information loss of non-sensitive patterns significantly and not creating fake patterns.
Publisher
World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS)
Reference66 articles.
1. X. Kong, W. Huang, Z. Tan, and Y. Liu, “Molecule generation by principal subgraph mining and assembling,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, pp. 2550–2563, 2022, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2106.15098. 2. F. C. Queiroz, A. M. Vargas, M. G. Oliveira, G. V. Comarela, and S. A. Silveira, “ppigremlin: a graph mining based detection of conserved structural arrangements in protein-protein interfaces,” BMC bioinformatics, vol. 21, pp. 1–25, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-020-3474-1. 3. A. Mrzic, P. Meysman, W. Bittremieux, P. Moris, B. Cule, B. Goethals, and K. Laukens, “Grasping frequent subgraph mining for bioinformatics applications,” BioData mining, vol. 11, pp. 1–24, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13040-018-0181-9. 4. L. Li, P. Ding, H. Chen, and X. Wu, “Frequent pattern mining in big social graphs,” IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 638–648, 2021. 10.1109/TETCI.2021.3067017. 5. L. Potin, R. Figueiredo, V. Labatut, and C. Largeron, “Pattern mining for anomaly detection in graphs: Application to fraud in public procurement,” in Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, Turin, Italy, 2023, pp. 69–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43427-3_5.
|
|