Beyond Random Noise: Insights on Anonymization Strategies from a Latent Bandit Study

This paper investigates the issue of privacy in a learning scenario where users share knowledge for a recommendation task. Our study contributes to the growing body of research on privacy-preserving machine learning and underscores the need for tailored privacy techniques that address specific attack patterns rather than relying on one-size-fits-all solutions. We use the latent bandit setting to evaluate the trade-off between privacy and recommender performance by employing various aggregation strategies, such as averaging, nearest neighbor, and clustering combined with noise injection. More specifically, we simulate a linkage attack scenario leveraging publicly available auxiliary information acquired by the adversary. Our results on three open real-world datasets reveal that adding noise using the Laplace mechanism to an individual user's data record is a poor choice. It provides the highest regret for any noise level, relative to de-anonymization probability and the ADS metric. Instead, one should combine noise with appropriate aggregation strategies. For example, using averages from clusters of different sizes provides flexibility not achievable by varying the amount of noise alone. Generally, no single aggregation strategy can consistently achieve the optimum regret for a given desired level of privacy.

FedCSD: A Federated Learning Based Approach for Code-Smell Detection

This paper proposes a Federated Learning Code Smell Detection (FedCSD) approach that allows organizations to collaboratively train federated ML models while preserving their data privacy. These assertions have been supported by three experiments that have significantly leveraged three manually validated datasets aimed at detecting and examining different code smell scenarios. In experiment 1, which was concerned with a centralized training experiment, dataset two achieved the lowest accuracy (92.30%) with fewer smells, while datasets one and three achieved the highest accuracy with a slight difference (98.90% and 99.5%, respectively). This was followed by experiment 2, which was concerned with cross-evaluation, where each ML model was trained using one dataset, which was then evaluated over the other two datasets. Results from this experiment show a significant drop in the model's accuracy (lowest accuracy: 63.80\%) where fewer smells exist in the training dataset, which has a noticeable reflection (technical debt) on the model's performance. Finally, the last and third experiments evaluate our approach by splitting the dataset into 10 companies. The ML model was trained on the company's site, then all model-updated weights were transferred to the server. Ultimately, an accuracy of 98.34% was achieved by the global model that has been trained using 10 companies for 100 training rounds. The results reveal a slight difference in the global model's accuracy compared to the highest accuracy of the centralized model, which can be ignored in favour of the global model's comprehensive knowledge, lower training cost, preservation of data privacy, and avoidance of the technical debt problem.