Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 80Privacy-Preserving Technologies in DataRecommender Systems and TechniquesPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Privacy-preserving collaborative recommendations based on random perturbations

Open access

Abstract

We propose a solution to the privacy problem found in collaborative filtering.Our proposed method is based on multiple levels.We have evaluated our method using five real datasets and well known metrics. Collaborative recommender systems offer a solution to the information overload problem found in online environments such as e-commerce. The use of collaborative filtering, the most widely used recommendation method, gives rise to potential privacy issues. In addition, the user ratings utilized in collaborative filtering systems to recommend products or services must be protected. The purpose of this research is to provide a solution to the privacy concerns of collaborative filtering users, while maintaining high accuracy of recommendations. This paper proposes a multi-level privacy-preserving method for collaborative filtering systems by perturbing each rating before it is submitted to the server. The perturbation method is based on multiple levels and different ranges of random values for each level. Before the submission of each rating, the privacy level and the perturbation range are selected randomly from a fixed range of privacy levels. The proposed privacy method has been experimentally evaluated with the results showing that with a small decrease of utility, user privacy can be protected, while the proposed approach offers practical and effective results.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eswa.2016.11.018

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 40 references

Cited by

See all 80

Metadata

Authors
Polatidis, N., Georgiadis, C. K., Pimenidis, E., & Mouratidis, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Macedonia (GR)
  • University of the West of England (GB)
  • University of Brighton (GB)
Corresponding author
Polatidis, Nikolaos
Venue
Expert Systems with Applications
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-04
Volume
71
Pages
18-25
ISSN
0957-4174 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2552883359
Cited by
80
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 2
FWCI
6.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
  • cc-by-nc-nd
  • www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Expert Systems with Applications (publishedVersion)
  • UWE Research Repository (UWE Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • University of Brighton Repository (University of Brighton) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
Keywords
privacy-preserving recommendation, collaborative filtering, collaborative recommender systems, random perturbations, user privacy, recommendation accuracy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Privacy-preserving collaborative recommendations based on random perturbations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.11.018
The paper
Polatidis, N., Georgiadis, C. K., Pimenidis, E., & Mouratidis, H. (2017). Privacy-preserving collaborative recommendations based on random perturbations. Expert Systems with Applications. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.11.018

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.