Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 36 references

FedSLIM is the first federated framework for MDL-based pattern mining, letting distributed clients jointly learn a compact global pattern set from aggregated usage counts alone.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-07-31 23:59 UTC pith:NOBYCQKX

load-bearing objection A real first — federated MDL pattern mining with two viable variants — but the server-oblivious privacy claim overreaches: Round 1 leaks structural codetable membership, so FedSLIM-SA hides counts, not structure. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.23236 v1 pith:NOBYCQKX submitted 2026-07-25 stat.ML cs.AIcs.LG

FedSLIM: Privacy-Preserving Federated MDL-Based Descriptive Pattern Mining Across Data Silos

Samar Samir Khalil , Noha S. Tawfik , Marco Spruit This is my paper
classification stat.ML cs.AIcs.LG
keywords federated learningminimum description lengthdescriptive pattern miningcodetableitemset mininglocal-global discovery gapsecure aggregationnon-IID data
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper introduces FedSLIM, a federated version of the MDL-based SLIM pattern miner, and argues it is the first framework to optimise a global description-length objective across data silos without sharing raw transactions. The core claim is that clients can jointly refine a shared codetable of itemsets by exchanging only aggregated usage statistics, and that this preserves the dominant compression structure of a centralised solution while evaluating orders of magnitude fewer candidates. The paper also identifies a local-global discovery gap: under data partitioning, an itemset can be globally compressive yet fail to appear in any single client's locally optimised model, and it shows both FedSLIM variants recover a substantial share of such patterns. If correct, this makes MDL-based descriptive analytics practical in privacy-sensitive federated settings where standalone local mining would miss the global picture.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that MDL-based pattern mining can be federated: a server coordinates clients that each run local SLIM-style candidate generation, clients report usage statistics over their local codetables, and the server aggregates these into a global codetable whose compression is evaluated under the same MDL objective used centrally. FedSLIM-SA achieves this with cryptographic secure aggregation over padded, aligned usage vectors, hiding individual contributions from the server; FedSLIM-SO sends exact usage values to the server but keeps clients mutually isolated by querying only the clients that generated each candidate. The paper further claims that a global pattern can be

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the MDL codetable: a set of itemsets with Shannon-optimal code lengths derived from usage counts. SLIM greedily inserts candidates that reduce total description length; FedSLIM preserves this objective across clients by aggregating usage statistics into a global codetable. The key mechanism for FedSLIM-SA is a two-round protocol in which clients first send only the structural skeleton of their codetable (no counts), the server builds a global index, and clients then submit padded, pairwise-masked usage vectors aligned to that index, so the server learns only aggregate sums. FedSLIM-SO instead caches non-participant usage vectors and queries only candidate-generatin

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that the aggregate of local usage counts, communicated over a skeleton of itemset names, is both sufficient to drive global MDL optimisation and non-revealing of anything sensitive about any client's data.

What would settle it

In a two-client federation where one client uniquely holds a high-usage itemset, if the server can infer the holder from the Round-1 structural skeleton, or if a globally compressive pattern never enters the federated codetable because local gains stay negative on every shard, the central claim is falsified.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Federated MDL mining can be performed without sharing raw transactions, using only aggregated usage counts over a shared encoded item vocabulary.
  • Both FedSLIM-SA and FedSLIM-SO preserve the dominant compression structure of a centralised codetable while evaluating one to two orders of magnitude fewer candidates.
  • Itemsets that are globally compressive but absent from every local codetable — the local-global discovery gap — can be recovered through global usage aggregation, even under IID partitioning.
  • FedSLIM-SA offers stronger server-side privacy at the cost of candidate exploration and communication; FedSLIM-SO scales to larger federations and heterogeneous data by querying only candidate-generating clients.
  • The main scaling bottleneck is communication, not the MDL objective: a longer execution budget did not substantially close the gap to centralised fidelity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The Round-1 structural skeleton in FedSLIM-SA means the server sees which itemsets each client holds before masking; if codetable membership is sensitive, the 'server-oblivious' guarantee covers counts but not structure.
  • The discovery-gap approximation implies a testable design rule: federations could pre-screen candidate itemsets by comparing estimated global gain against shard-count dilution, saving communication by skipping candidates whose federation size is too large.
  • Because FedSLIM relies only on aggregate usage statistics, the same orchestration could in principle wrap other MDL-based miners whose objectives are additive over transaction codings, such as sequential or interval pattern miners.
  • The observed result that exact codetable overlap can be low while high-impact pattern recovery stays high suggests a practical sampling strategy: federated evaluation could focus on the highest-usage candidates and ignore the long tail, reducing rounds and bytes without sacrificing compression.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces FedSLIM, claimed to be the first federated framework for MDL-based descriptive pattern mining. It extends the centralised SLIM algorithm to horizontally partitioned data under two variants: FedSLIM-SA, which uses cryptographic secure aggregation to hide client-level usage values, and FedSLIM-SO, which lets the server observe per-client statistics but keeps clients mutually isolated. The protocol is described in Algorithm 1 and Figure 1, and evaluated on eight datasets under IID, non-IID, imbalance, and scalability settings. The authors introduce fidelity and discovery metrics (F1, WR@k, Spearman rho, GRR) and report that both variants preserve dominant compression structure while evaluating far fewer candidates than centralised SLIM. They also identify a local-global discovery gap, where globally compressive patterns are absent from all local codetables, and show that FedSLIM recovers a substantial fraction of such patterns.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper addresses a genuine gap: federated descriptive and MDL-based pattern mining is indeed underexplored relative to predictive federated learning. The protocol design is nontrivial, especially the two-round secure aggregation over structurally heterogeneous codetables, and the local-global discovery gap is a worthwhile empirical phenomenon. The authors provide a public implementation, use standard benchmark datasets, and define quantitative metrics that go beyond raw compression numbers. The main contributions are potentially useful to the federated analytics community. However, the central privacy claim for FedSLIM-SA is overstated, and several headline conclusions rest on experimental evidence that is thinner than the narrative suggests.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, FedSLIM-SA (Secure Aggregation / Server-Oblivious)] The server-oblivious claim is internally inconsistent. The text states that the server 'learns solely arithmetic sums; it cannot recover any client's usage values or distinguish a client with zero usage for an itemset from one that never held it locally' and later that the server 'cannot distinguish participating from non-participating clients.' But Round 1 of FedSLIM-SA requires clients to transmit 'the structural skeleton of their local state, consisting of either the ordered itemsets in CT_i or the locally generated candidate tuples,' before any secure aggregation. The server therefore sees, for each client, which itemsets and candidates exist in that client's local codetable. A zero entry in Round 2 is not indistinguishable from absence; absence was disclosed in Round 1. The paper's own caveat that padding 'partially conceals the contribution structure' contradicts the stronger 'lear
  2. [§5, Tables 2–7] All reported results are single-run point estimates with no seeds, variance, or confidence intervals. Claims such as 'FedSLIM-SO scales more favourably' (§5.2) and 'FedSLIM-SA degrades rapidly' (§5.2) rest on individual numbers. For example, Table 3 shows FedSLIM-SA reaching L%=71.54 and F1=0.031 at n=128, attributed to the 24-hour budget, but without repeated runs one cannot tell whether these trends are stable or artefacts of a particular partition. The paper should report means and standard deviations over multiple random seeds and/or partition samples, at least for the headline compression and fidelity metrics.
  3. [§5.1, Tables 2–3] The abstract's claim of 'orders of magnitude less search than the centralised baseline' is supported only by the candidate-count metric |F|. The federated protocols involve many client-side MDL evaluations, secure-aggregation overhead, and very large byte transmission totals (e.g., 94.23 GB on Letter Recognition, 140.65 GB on Connect-4 in Table 2). No wall-clock runtime or total computation comparison is reported. With only |F|, the efficiency claim is not fully substantiated; the paper should report runtime and, ideally, a communication-adjusted cost, or explicitly restrict the claim to candidate evaluations.
  4. [§5, overall experimental design] The evaluation compares FedSLIM only against centralised SLIM; no existing federated or distributed pattern-mining baseline (e.g., FedFPM, FedFIM, or a secure support-count aggregation method) is used. The paper motivates the work by arguing that prior federated pattern mining is support-based and lacks MDL optimisation, but it never measures how FedSLIM compares with such methods in terms of pattern quality, communication cost, or compression. Without at least one federated baseline, the conclusion that FedSLIM is a 'practical foundation' for federated MDL mining is not empirically grounded against the alternatives the paper itself discusses.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.5, Eq. (9)] Equation (9) is presented as an approximation but is not derived or empirically validated. The paper does not show how closely ΔL_i(X) matches actual local gains. Since the equation is not used in the algorithm or metrics, it should be explicitly labelled as an intuition/heuristic, or validated with data.
  2. [§4.3, Eq. (5)] The notation A and B is introduced only in the prose; define them in the equation or immediately before. The phrase 'fraction of total centralised usage contributed by the top-k centralised itemsets that are recovered' in WR@k is ambiguous: clarify whether recovery of an itemset counts once or is weighted by usage.
  3. [§3.2, Figure 2] The sentence 'Figure 2, shows the communication workflow' contains a typo (comma after 'Figure 2'). Also, Figure 2 is dense; consider annotating the SA two-round structure more clearly, since it is central to the privacy discussion.
  4. [§3.2] The text says 'The two variants ... share this protocol structure' (Figure 1), but Figure 2 shows substantially different message flows between SA and SO. Clarify what exactly is shared: the high-level phases only, or also the local processing steps.
  5. [§5.2, Table 3] The centralised row reports only L%; it would be useful to also show the centralised |F| and, if available, runtime for the same dataset so readers can interpret the federated numbers in context.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: FedSLIM's claims are anchored to external centralized SLIM baselines and the standard MDL objective, not to its own outputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The federated objective is the standard MDL objective of Eq. (2), and global usage statistics are aggregated from local usages; no parameter is fitted and then re-reported as a prediction. The central empirical comparisons use external centralized SLIM implementations ([10] and scikit-mine [35]) as baselines, so the fidelity metrics in Eqs. (5)-(8) and the 'orders of magnitude less search' claim are measured against an independent benchmark rather than against FedSLIM's own outputs. Eq. (9) is explicitly an approximation used to motivate the discovery gap; it is not fitted from the experimental results, and the gap is then measured directly via GRR against the centralised codetable. The only self-citation, ref. [5], appears in a related-work sentence about predictive federated learning and is not load-bearing for any technical claim. The protocol's Round-1 disclosure of structural skeletons in §3.2 creates a privacy/security inconsistency with the 'server learns nothing beyond aggregate sums' formulation, but this is a correctness issue, not circularity: it does not make any claimed result true by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No invented physical or ontological entities are introduced; the new protocol constructs (global index, padded evaluation index, server-side cache) are engineering artifacts rather than postulates. The main implicit burden is the linear aggregation of MDL usage statistics and the unproven scaling approximation in Eq (9).

axioms (4)
  • standard math SLIM's cover order, Shannon-optimal code lengths, and MDL objective are accepted as given from Smets & Vreeken [10].
    The federated algorithm inherits these definitions without re-deriving them; the paper relies on SLIM's code-table formulation as a valid compression objective.
  • domain assumption Aggregating local usage counts across clients yields a valid global MDL evaluation.
    Algorithm 1 repeatedly sums local usage statistics to estimate and verify global compression gain. The paper does not prove this aggregation equals L(CT,D) when local codetables diverge between accepted updates.
  • ad hoc to paper The local compression benefit of a candidate scales as approximately 1/n with a constant model overhead term as in Eq (9).
    Eq (9) is asserted to justify the local-global discovery gap as inherent to partitioning, but no derivation or formal bound is provided; the observed gap could partly be an artifact of the 24-hour search budget.
  • domain assumption Semi-honest (honest-but-curious) adversaries and opaque item identifiers are sufficient to support the claimed privacy properties.
    The security discussion is limited to semi-honest adversaries and standard ECDH assumptions, and does not model the structural leakage from Round 1 of FedSLIM-SA.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16309 in / 12513 out tokens · 118984 ms · 2026-07-31T23:59:35.606589+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Federated learning has achieved considerable success for predictive modelling, yet federated descriptive analytics remains largely unexplored. Existing federated pattern mining approaches are predominantly support-based and do not optimise a principled global objective such as Minimum Description Length (MDL). We introduce FedSLIM, the first federated MDL-based framework for descriptive pattern mining. Building on the SLIM principle, FedSLIM enables collaborative optimisation of compact pattern models across distributed databases without sharing raw transactions. We propose two complementary variants that balance privacy, communication, and optimisation fidelity under different deployment assumptions. To evaluate federated MDL mining, we introduce fidelity and discovery-oriented metrics that quantify agreement with a centralised baseline and assess recovery of globally informative patterns. Experiments on multiple real-world datasets under IID and non-IID partitioning show that both variants preserve high-quality compression structure while requiring orders of magnitude less search than the centralised baseline. We further reveal a local-global discovery gap in distributed MDL mining, where globally compressive patterns may be undiscoverable through isolated local optimisation. Both variants recover globally informative patterns absent from all standalone local models, demonstrating the benefits of federated optimisation beyond independent local mining. These results establish federated MDL mining as a practical foundation for privacy-preserving descriptive analytics across distributed data silos.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23236 by Marco Spruit, Noha S. Tawfik, Samar Samir Khalil.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of a complete FEDSLIM iteration on a toy two-client federated database over items {a, b, c, d, e}. The two variants, FedSLIM-SA and FedSLIM-SO, share this protocol structure but differ in how clients report usage statistics to the server and in the degree of inter-client transparency the protocol affords, as detailed in the following subsections. To further limit server-side disclosure, client… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Communication and execution sequence of F [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Pattern mining: Current challenges and opportunities

    Philippe Fournier-Viger, Wensheng Gan, Youxi Wu, Mourad Nouioua, Wei Song, Tin Truong, and Hai Duong. Pattern mining: Current challenges and opportunities. InInternational Conference on Database Systems for Advanced Applications, pages 34–49. Springer, 2022

    2022

  2. [2]

    Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead.Nature machine intelligence, 1(5):206–215, 2019

    Cynthia Rudin. Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead.Nature machine intelligence, 1(5):206–215, 2019

    2019

  3. [3]

    The minimum description length principle for pattern mining: a survey.Data mining and knowledge discovery, 36(5):1679–1727, 2022

    Esther Galbrun. The minimum description length principle for pattern mining: a survey.Data mining and knowledge discovery, 36(5):1679–1727, 2022

    2022

  4. [4]

    Communication- efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data

    Brendan McMahan, Eider Moore, Daniel Ramage, Seth Hampson, and Blaise Aguera y Arcas. Communication- efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. InArtificial intelligence and statistics, pages 1273–1282. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  5. [5]

    Exploring the potential of federated learning in mental health research: a systematic literature review: Ss khalil et al.Applied Intelligence, 54(2):1619–1636, 2024

    Samar Samir Khalil, Noha S Tawfik, and Marco Spruit. Exploring the potential of federated learning in mental health research: a systematic literature review: Ss khalil et al.Applied Intelligence, 54(2):1619–1636, 2024. 15 APREPRINT- JULY28, 2026

    2024

  6. [6]

    Recent methodological advances in federated learning for healthcare.Patterns, 5(6), 2024

    Fan Zhang, Daniel Kreuter, Yichen Chen, Sören Dittmer, Samuel Tull, Tolou Shadbahr, Martijn Schut, Folkert Asselbergs, Sujoy Kar, Suthesh Sivapalaratnam, et al. Recent methodological advances in federated learning for healthcare.Patterns, 5(6), 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    Federated learning in edge computing: a systematic survey.Sensors, 22(2):450, 2022

    Haftay Gebreslasie Abreha, Mohammad Hayajneh, and Mohamed Adel Serhani. Federated learning in edge computing: a systematic survey.Sensors, 22(2):450, 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    A privacy frequent itemsets mining framework for collaboration in iot using federated learning.ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks, 19(2):1–15, 2023

    Jimmy Ming-Tai Wu, Qian Teng, Shamsul Huda, Yeh-Cheng Chen, and Chien-Ming Chen. A privacy frequent itemsets mining framework for collaboration in iot using federated learning.ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks, 19(2):1–15, 2023

    2023

  9. [9]

    Mine-first association rule mining: An integration of independent frequent patterns in distributed environments.Decision Analytics Journal, 10:100434, 2024

    Bharadwaj Mudumba and Md Faisal Kabir. Mine-first association rule mining: An integration of independent frequent patterns in distributed environments.Decision Analytics Journal, 10:100434, 2024

    2024

  10. [10]

    Slim: Directly mining descriptive patterns

    Koen Smets and Jilles Vreeken. Slim: Directly mining descriptive patterns. InProceedings of the 2012 SIAM international conference on data mining, pages 236–247. SIAM, 2012

    2012

  11. [11]

    Krimp: mining itemsets that compress.Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 23(1):169–214, 2011

    Jilles Vreeken, Matthijs Van Leeuwen, and Arno Siebes. Krimp: mining itemsets that compress.Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 23(1):169–214, 2011

    2011

  12. [12]

    Widened krimp: better performance through diverse parallelism

    Oliver Sampson and Michael R Berthold. Widened krimp: better performance through diverse parallelism. In International Symposium on Intelligent Data Analysis, pages 276–285. Springer, 2014

    2014

  13. [13]

    Finding good itemsets by packing data

    Nikolaj Tatti and Jilles Vreeken. Finding good itemsets by packing data. In2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, pages 588–597. IEEE, 2008

    2008

  14. [14]

    A genetic algorithm for efficient descriptive pattern mining

    M Zohaib Nawaz, M Saqib Nawaz, Philippe Fournier-Viger, and Nazha Selmaoui-Folcher. A genetic algorithm for efficient descriptive pattern mining. In6th International Workshop on Utility-Driven Mining and Learning, page 12p, 2024

    2024

  15. [15]

    Grimp: A genetic algorithm for compression-based descriptive pattern mining.Expert Systems, 42(5):e70033, 2025

    M Zohaib Nawaz, M Saqib Nawaz, Philippe Fournier-Viger, and Nazha Selmaoui-Folcher. Grimp: A genetic algorithm for compression-based descriptive pattern mining.Expert Systems, 42(5):e70033, 2025

    2025

  16. [16]

    Mining compressing sequential patterns

    Hoang Thanh Lam, Fabian Mörchen, Dmitriy Fradkin, and Toon Calders. Mining compressing sequential patterns. Statistical Analysis and Data Mining: The ASA Data Science Journal, 7(1):34–52, 2014

    2014

  17. [17]

    Realkrimp—finding hyperintervals that compress with mdl for real-valued data

    Jouke Witteveen, Wouter Duivesteijn, Arno Knobbe, and Peter Grünwald. Realkrimp—finding hyperintervals that compress with mdl for real-valued data. InInternational Symposium on Intelligent Data Analysis, pages 368–379. Springer, 2014

    2014

  18. [18]

    Shrimp: descriptive patterns in a tree

    Sibylle Hess, Nico Piatkowski, and Katharina Morik. Shrimp: descriptive patterns in a tree. In16th Workshops on Learning, Knowledge, Adaptation, LWA 2014: Knowledge Discovery, Data Mining and Machine Learning, KDML 2014, Information Retrieval, IR 2014 and Knowledge Management, FGWM 2014, pages 181–192. CEUR-WS. org, 2014

    2014

  19. [19]

    Mint: Mdl-based approach for mining interesting numerical pattern sets.Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 36(1):108–145, 2022

    Tatiana Makhalova, Sergei O Kuznetsov, and Amedeo Napoli. Mint: Mdl-based approach for mining interesting numerical pattern sets.Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 36(1):108–145, 2022

    2022

  20. [20]

    The difference and the norm—characterising similarities and differences between databases

    Kailash Budhathoki and Jilles Vreeken. The difference and the norm—characterising similarities and differences between databases. InJoint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, pages 206–223. Springer, 2015

    2015

  21. [21]

    Fast and reliable anomaly detection in categorical data

    Leman Akoglu, Hanghang Tong, Jilles Vreeken, and Christos Faloutsos. Fast and reliable anomaly detection in categorical data. InProceedings of the 21st ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management, pages 415–424, 2012

    2012

  22. [22]

    Secure mining of association rules in horizontally distributed databases.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 26(4):970–983, 2013

    Tamir Tassa. Secure mining of association rules in horizontally distributed databases.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 26(4):970–983, 2013

    2013

  23. [23]

    Federated mining of interesting association rules over ehrs.Applying the FAIR Principles to Accelerate Health Research in Europe in the Post COVID-19 Era, 287:3–7, 2021

    Carlos Molina, Belen Prados-Suarez, Beatriz Martinez-Sanchez, et al. Federated mining of interesting association rules over ehrs.Applying the FAIR Principles to Accelerate Health Research in Europe in the Post COVID-19 Era, 287:3–7, 2021

    2021

  24. [24]

    Fedfpm: A unified federated analytics framework for collaborative frequent pattern mining

    Zibo Wang, Yifei Zhu, Dan Wang, and Zhu Han. Fedfpm: A unified federated analytics framework for collaborative frequent pattern mining. InIEEE INFOCOM 2022-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, pages 61–70. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  25. [25]

    Privacy preservation in federated market basket analysis using homomorphic encryption

    Sameeka Saini and Durga Toshniwal. Privacy preservation in federated market basket analysis using homomorphic encryption. InProceedings of the First International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Artificial Intelligence for Cyber Security, pages 109–118, 2024

    2024

  26. [26]

    Privacy-preserving federated mining of frequent itemsets.Information Sciences, 625:504–520, 2023

    Yao Chen, Wensheng Gan, Yongdong Wu, and Philip S Yu. Privacy-preserving federated mining of frequent itemsets.Information Sciences, 625:504–520, 2023. 16 APREPRINT- JULY28, 2026

    2023

  27. [27]

    Comparative analysis of federated association rules in a simulated environment for medical applications.IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 2025

    Juan Paños-Basterra, Jose M Rivas, Roberto Morcillo-Jimenez, Carlos Fernandez-Basso, M Dolores Ruiz, and Maria J Martin-Bautista. Comparative analysis of federated association rules in a simulated environment for medical applications.IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 2025

    2025

  28. [28]

    Designing a novel fuzzy association rule mining algorithm for federated environments

    Carlos Fernandez-Basso, M Dolores Ruiz, and Maria J Martin-Bautista. Designing a novel fuzzy association rule mining algorithm for federated environments. InInternational Conference on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems, pages 131–142. Springer, 2024

    2024

  29. [29]

    Rescorla

    E. Rescorla. The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3. RFC 8446, IETF, 2018

    2018

  30. [30]

    Cooper, S

    D. Cooper, S. Santesson, S. Farrell, S. Boeyen, R. Housley, and W. Polk. Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile. RFC 5280, IETF, 2008

    2008

  31. [31]

    Deutsch and J-L

    P. Deutsch and J-L. Gailly. ZLIB Compressed Data Format Specification version 3.3. RFC 1950, IETF, 1996

    1950

  32. [32]

    Brendan McMahan, Sarvar Patel, Daniel Ramage, Aaron Segal, and Karn Seth

    Keith Bonawitz, Vladimir Ivanov, Ben Kreuter, Antonio Marcedone, H. Brendan McMahan, Sarvar Patel, Daniel Ramage, Aaron Segal, and Karn Seth. Practical secure aggregation for privacy-preserving machine learning. In ACM CCS, 2017

    2017

  33. [33]

    Directly mining descriptive patterns

    Jilles Vreeken. Directly mining descriptive patterns. Accessed: 2026-04-10

    2026

  34. [34]

    Frequent itemset mining dataset repository

    Bart Goethals. Frequent itemset mining dataset repository. Accessed: 2026-04-10

    2026

  35. [35]

    Scikit-mine: pattern mining in python, 2023

    PyPI. Scikit-mine: pattern mining in python, 2023. Accessed: 2026-04-11

    2023

  36. [36]

    Robert Schulz. Alice. Accessed: 2026-04-11. 17

    2026