# Big Data Analytics Model for Distributed Document Using Hybrid Optimization withK-Means Clustering

Authors: Kapil Sharma; Satish Saini; Shailja Sharma; Hardeep Singh Kang; Mohamed Bouye; Daniel Krah
Journal: Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

Clustering, also known as unsupervised learning, is one of the most significant topics of machine learning because it divides data into groups based on similarity with the aim of extracting or summarizing new information. It is one of the most often used machine learning techniques. The most significant problem encountered in this subject is the sheer volume of electronic text documents accessible, which is increasing at an exponential rate, necessitating the development of efficient ways for dealing with these papers. Furthermore, it is not practicable to consolidate all of the papers from numerous locations into a single area for processing. In this study, the primary goal is to enhance the performance of the distributed document clustering approach for clustering big, high-dimensional distributed document datasets. For distributed storage and analysis, one of the most prominent open-source implementations of the big data analytic-based MapReduce model, such as the Hadoop framework, is used in conjunction with a distributed file system and is known as the Hadoop Distributed File System, to achieve the desired results. This necessitates an improvement in the approach of the clustering operation with Elephant Herding Optimization, which will be accomplished by applying a hybridized clustering procedure. In conjunction with the MapReduce framework, this hybridized strategy is able to solve the obstacles associated with theK-means clustering method, including the initial centroids difficulty and the dimensionality problem. In this paper, we analyze the performance of the whole distributed document clustering technique for big document datasets by using a distributed document clustering framework such as Hadoop and the associated MapReduce methodology. In the end, this decides how quickly computations may be completed.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

In the collaborative recommendation system, attacker includes the suspicious profiles for creating the higher rating for their products. This is occurred due to the vulnerability and openness of the nature in the recommendation system. In order to solve this problem, different detection methods have been designed to identify such attacks, which utilize various elements separated from user profiles [1]. However, accuracy of attack detection was not improved. Recently, many methods were designed to find the genuine user profile and attack profile, but the time taken to detect the attack in the recommendation system was remained higher. Therefore, feature extraction is needed before finding the attack in the system. With the help of feature extraction, the pertinent features of users are chosen to discover the attack in a simple manner [2]. In previous chapter, Gentle AdaBoost Incremental Partitioning around Medoid Clustering (GAIPAMC) technique is designed to determine the profile injection attack in the collaborative recommendation system. However, the performance of attack detection is needed to be further optimized [3].Multivariate Empirical Mode Decomposition-Based Gradient Support Vector Entropy Boosting Classifier (MEMF-GEBSVC) technique is designed to detect the profile injection attacks in the collaborative recommendation system [4]. The main aim of designing MEMF-GEBSVC technique is to find the profile injection attack with higher accuracy and lesser time. MEMF-GEBSVC technique gathers number of data from the MovieLens 1 M dataset. The input dataset comprises the information about diverse movies ratings made by the users [5].MEMF-GEBSVC technique is performed in two steps. In the first step, feature extraction is carried out using Multivariate Empirical Mode Decomposition (MEMF). In the feature extraction process, intrinsic mode function (IMF) feature is obtained. Once the features are chosen, then the classification is performed in the second step for detecting the user as genuine profile or attack profile. In proposed technique, Gradient Support Vector Entropy Boosting Classifier (GEBSVC) is used for detecting the profile injection attack [6]. In the classification process, support vector entropy classifier is utilized as weak classifier for classifying the each user profiles [7]. Then, the loss function for each weak learner output is measured. Depended on the loss function, weights of the weak classifiers are updated. In this case, the weak learner with the lowest loss is providing the strongest classifiers. Collaborative recommendation systems can identify profile injection attacks using a robust classifier differentiating between the genuine user and attack profiles [8].


## 2. Multivariate Empirical Mode Decomposition-Based Gradient Support Vector Entropy Boosting Classifier Technique

Ratings injected by malicious users severely concern the suggestions in the recommendation systems. Therefore, the detection of profile injection attack is required in the collaborative commendation systems. Yishu and Zhang [9] employed to discover the shilling attacks depended on time series analysis and trust features (TSA–TF) in social recommender systems. In TSA–TF, SVM classifier is applied to discriminate attack profiles, but the attack detection rate was failed to be increased [10]. Therefore, an effective technique called Multivariate Empirical Mode Decomposition-Based Gradient Support Vector Entropy Boosting Classifier (MEMF-GEBSVC) technique is introduced to detect the profile injection attack in the collaborative recommendation systems with better accuracy [11]. MEMF-GEBSVC technique uses the two different processes such as Multivariate Empirical Mode Decomposition (MEMF) and Gradient Support Vector Entropy Boosting Classifier (GEBSVC) to lessen the time and increase the precision of attack detection [12]. The architecture diagram of proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique is given in Figure 1.Figure 1
Block diagram of MEMF-GEBSVC technique for profile injection attack detection.The process of profile injection attack detection using proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique with maximum accuracy and minimum time is illustrated in Figure1. Initially, number of data is used as input from the MovieLens dataset [13]. Then feature extraction is applied to obtain the features for profile injection attack detection with less time [14]. Feature extraction is performed by using Multivariate Empirical Mode Decomposition (MEMF). Followed by this, input data with extracted features are classified in MEMF-GEBSVC technique with the help of Gradient Support Vector Entropy Boosting Classifier [15]. This in turns, the genuine user profile and attacker profile are effectively identified with minimal time. Brief process involved in the proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique is described in the following sections [16].Data is created on a continuous basis from every domain that has access to the internet and computer technology. The sources that generate large amounts of data may be broadly classified into many primary sectors, including corporate, scientific, social networks, online data, and sensor data, amongst other things [17]. The amount of data being generated by such sources is growing at such a quick pace that it is approaching petabyte levels. Huge amounts of raw data collected in this manner are like trash and stupid unless they are turned into little, valuable, and precise information that the human brain can interpret in order to aid in the decision-making process in the future [18]. In order to discover meaningful and usable information, i.e., knowledge, by extracting hidden patterns from a large amount of data, knowledge discovery techniques have been developed. KDD (knowledge discovery in databases) is the word used to refer to knowledge discovery in databases [17, 19]. KDD is a multistep process that includes preprocessing, data mining, and postprocessing procedures, among other approaches [20]. The preprocessing stage is concerned with data cleansing, integration, selection, and transformation, while the postprocessing step is concerned with evaluating patterns and representing the information acquired throughout the process. Data mining is a critical phase in knowledge discovery and discovery (KDD), in which intelligent approaches are utilized to extract data patterns [21]. Data mining is the process of uncovering or extracting valuable and intriguing patterns from large amounts of data that have been concealed [14]. Data mining includes a variety of approaches such as mining for common patterns and association rules, classification, and cluster analysis, among others [8].The efficiency of parallel and distributed algorithms is dependent on the efficiency of the approaches that are employed to solve these design problems. There were three parallel versions of Apriori suggested, which were designated as count distribution (CD), data distribution (DD), and candidate distribution (Cand. D), respectively [22, 23]. In the literature, data parallelism algorithms (CD and DD algorithms) are classified as either data parallelism or task parallelism algorithms, respectively, whereas candidate distribution algorithms are classified as a hybrid of data parallelism and task parallelism algorithms [24]. Due to the fact that they are specifically designed for a homogeneous computing environment [25], traditional parallel and distributed algorithms, such as those discussed above, are unable to address all of the challenging issues associated with mining of large, distributed, and remote data sets. Because of the homogenous environment, the majority of the current parallel and distributed ARM methods are based on static load balancing and split the database uniformly among the computer nodes in order to maximize performance. Therefore, they [9] could not be effectively used on either the future grid computing infrastructure or on the heterogeneous compute clusters that are now in use. It is less efficient to run certain algorithms in such an environment, which results in decreased performance. Grid-based ARM algorithms are intended to facilitate [26] data distribution on geographically scattered nodes as well as the effective use of computing resources available on these nodes in order to achieve high performance. There are several limitations and overheads associated with traditional distributed systems. For example, there is no high level parallel programming language, and there is a strong reliance on the network for the management of distributed systems [27]. When working with a large number of computational nodes in a cluster or grid, there is always the possibility of node failures, which might result in the need to reexecute tasks many times. There are several overheads associated with the message passing interface (MPI) programming paradigm, including computation partitioning, data partitioning, synchronization, communication, scheduling, and managing node failure in a cluster of computers [28]. Despite the fact that MPI is the most widely used framework for scientific distributed computing, it is only compatible with low-level programming languages such as C and FORTRAN. Traditional distributed systems are very reliant on the network, necessitating a large amount of bandwidth while also using a significant amount of computing power in the process of data transit [29]. All of these issues are resolved by the usage of the MapReduce framework, which was developed by Google. MapReduce is a programming approach for large-scale distributed data processing that is streamlined for ease of use. Apache Hadoop, an open source project of the Apache Software Foundation that has implemented Google’s File System Hadoop, is a distributed system that is incredibly scalable and takes very little network capacity to operate, introducing Hadoop, a revolutionary new method of storing and analyzing data [Yahoo! Hadoop Tutorial]. The Hadoop architecture takes care of functions such as fault tolerance, data distribution, parallelization, and load balancing without human intervention [30]. In a standard parallel and distributed system, data is sent from one node to another for computing, which is not possible in the event of large amounts of data. Hadoop is intended to offer both computing power (MapReduce) and distributed storage (HDFS) in a centralized location (as opposed to several locations). Its architecture is centered on spreading processing power to the locations where the data is located, rather than transporting the data itself. As previously stated, the transport of computation is always much less expensive than the movement of data [31]. Among researchers, business, and academia, the phrase “Big Data” has become one of the most often used. Data may be created by a person or by a computer, depending on the situation. Documents, emails, photographs, videos, and postings on social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter, among other things, are examples of human-generated data [32]. Transaction records from purchase transactions, sensor data, and log data are all examples of data that is created by machines (i.e., web logs, click logs, email logs). The most significant sources of big data include buy transaction records, online data, social media data, click stream data, mobile phone GPS signals, and sensor data [33]. It is the amount of data that cannot be stored and processed by a single computer that is referred to as big data. Gartner and IBM together provided the most widely recognized definition of big data. Big data are accordingly to be characterized by the four Vs: volume, velocity, variety, and veracity [34]. Large-scale data processing, as well as analyzing and extracting information from it, has long been a popular topic of discussion. Despite the fact that conventional data mining methods and tools are effective in evaluating or mining data, they are neither scalable nor efficient in handling massive amounts of information. Conventional storage systems lack analytical capability, and traditional data analysis tools or methodologies are incapable of dealing with and processing large amounts of data in a timely manner [35]. As a result, a distributed system that can offer both analytical and processing capacity, as well as storage for massive amounts of data, is required. Hadoop is a distributed computing system that is intended to manage, process, and analyze large amounts of data. MapReduce is an efficient, scalable, and simple programming methodology for large scale distributed data processing on a large cluster of commodity computers [36]. Prior to the arrival of Hadoop, dealing with large datasets was a difficult task to say the least. As a result, it is necessary to rethink classic data mining methods on the MapReduce architecture in order to enable parallel and distributed processing of big data sets on a massive scale [37]. The Apriori method, as well as many other MapReduce-based ARM algorithms, has been rewritten to be implemented on a Hadoop cluster for distributed mining of frequent itemsets and association rules. Specifically, the MapReduce-based Apriori algorithm is the focus of this thesis’ investigation.


### 2.1. Multivariate Empirical Mode Decomposition-Based Feature Extraction

The proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique starts to perform the feature extraction for decreasing the time consumption of profile injection attack detection. Feature extraction is employed to obtain the features for attack detection. Multivariate Empirical Mode Decomposition (MEMF) is applied for feature extraction in MEMF-GEBSVC technique. MEMF is a data-driven method for accomplishing multi-scale decomposition. MEMF divides the time series data into different component for further analysis [23]. Let consider, user rating series data “X=x1,x2,x3,..xm” is used as input from MovieLens 1 M dataset. Each input data includes “n” number of features. MEMF is applied to decrease the given data into collection of intrinsic mode functions (IMF).Change the keyspace: changes keyspace replication as well as the ability to activate or disable the commit log.Modify the materialized view: Cassandra 3.0 and subsequent versions support changing the table attributes of a materialized view.Change your role: this function allows you to change your password and establish superuser or login preferences.Change the table, change the type, change the user, change the batch, and create an aggregate.Thus, the MEMF decomposes the given input data into number of components (i.e. intrinsic mode functions) and residual and it is mathematically expressed as follows,(1)xt=Et+∑i=1nhti.In the above equation (1), “xt” is the input data, and “Et” denotes the residual and a number of components intrinsic mode functions hti where i=1,2,⋯.n. After the decomposition, number of features from the dataset is extracted in MEMF-GEBSVC technique for decreasing the time requirement of attack detection. The first IMF is obtained as follows.Initially, point set is created depended on the Hammersley sequence for sampling on an (n−1) sphere. Then, the projection pθktt=1T of multivariate input data xtt=1T is computed and along a direction vector x for all k giving pθktt=1T. After that, time point tiθk is located to according to maxima of the set of projected data pθktt=1T. Interpolate tiθk,xtiθk for all the for all values of k to obtain multivariate envelope curves eθktk=1K. After that, mean mt of the envelope curves for a set of K direction vectors are computed as follows:
(2)mt=1K∑k=1Keθkt.Files are to be used as input. The data for the MapReduce task is contained in the input files Input Format is as follows: following that, Input Format specifies how these input files should be divided and read.The following components are included: Input Splits, Record Readers, Mappers, Combiners, Partitioners, Shuffling and Sorting, and Record Readers.The MapReduce approach had been modified in the book to include the execution phases, which had been previously published.In the above equation (2), mean mt of set of K direction vectors is determined. The difference between the data and mean value is the first component h1. It is mathematically given by
(3)ht=xt−mt.In the above equation (3), “ht” is the intrinsic mode functions. If the ht satisfies the stoppage criterion for multivariate IMF, apply the above procedure to xt−ht; otherwise, apply it to ht.The stopping condition for multivariate IMF is similar for univariate IMFs with the exception of balance imperative for number of extrema and zero intersections that is not forced as extrema cannot be legitimately characterized for the multivariate information. By projection, MEMF straightforwardly forms multivariate information to create the adjusted IMFs. Then, the entropy of IMF function (IMEn) is computed using the below equation:(4)IMEnk,q,r=sampEnSIMFkt,q,r.In the above equation (4), “q” is the window length, “r” is the resistance, and SIMFk compares to the combined IMF aggregate up to scale k. From that, all the IMFs of users are obtained to find attack in the collaborative recommendation systems.


### 2.2. Gradient Support Vector Entropy Boosting Classifier Technique

On the feature extraction that is completed, Gradient Support Vector Entropy Boosting Classifier (GEBSVC) is applied in MEMF-GEBSVC technique to improve the prediction accuracy of user rating series data. Zhou et al. [1] developed deep learning-based approach for detecting recommendation attack (DL-DRA) to classify the attack profile and genuine profile. The developed approach learns directly from the low-level rating data. However, accuracy performance was not improved [38]. In contrast to conventional works, GEBSVC is introduced by using support vector entropy classifier (SVEC) and gradient boosting classification. GEBSVC integrates the outputs of several base SVEC classifiers for creating the strong and robust classifier. This is achieved by applying many of weak SVEC classifier to lessen the classification error of user profiles [39].With the PARTITION BY command, you may get aggregated columns for each record in the selected table. We have 15 entries in the database, which means the query output SQL PARTITION BY returns 15 rows as well. GROUP BY, on the other hand, returns a single row for each group in the result set.Let us consider a MovieLens 1 M dataset that comprises the set of user rating series data with “n” features represented as X=x1,x2,x3,..xm where “m” denotes the total number of data in the dataset. Each user rating data is trained with the help of weak SVEC classifier. The SVEC classifier is designated as “x1,y1,x2,y2,⋯xn,yn” where “di“ denotes the set of training samples (i.e., input user rating data), and “yi” denotes the output (attacker profile). The base SVEC is a discriminative classifier to partition the positive and negative samples by using marginal hyperplane. Here, positive samples refer to the attacker profile, and negative samples refer to the genuine user profile. In order to detect the profile injection attack, base SVEC finds the optimal marginal hyperplane to categorize the each input data via the entropy method.In GEBSVC, the entropy method uses a split approach. Based on the class label, entropy is calculated in base SVEC. The best split is calculated in weak SVEC to find the accurate class of user profile. The base SVEC carry out the classification process through detecting the split with the maximal information gain. Batmaz et al. [27] designed classification approach to find the shilling attack in the collaborative recommender system, but the precision of attack detection was not at required level.Consider set of samples “S=d1,d2,d3,..dN.” If “S” is partitioned into “S1” and “S2” intervals by boundary “B,” then the entropy after spilt is computed using the below equation.
(5)IS,B=S1SEntS1+S2SEntS2.In the above equation (5), the probability of class “i” in interval “Si” is computed through partitioning the number of samples of class “i” in “Si” by total samples in “S.” It is mathematically given by
(6)EntS1=−∑i=1kPilog2Pi.By using equations (5) and (6), boundary reduces the entropy function. Overall, potential boundaries are selected as a binary discretization for categorizing the each input data into a two classes (i.e., genuine user profile and attacker profile). This process is repeated until stopping criterion is obtained. In order to increase the accuracy of profile injection attack detection, boosting classification is performed in using GEBSVC technique. Yang and Niu (2021) introduced the genre trust-based recommender system to avoid the shilling attacks in recommender systems, but the recall rate was lower.In proposed technique, GEBSVC creates “n” number of base SVEC classifier results for each input data. Followed by this, GEBSVC technique assigns the weight value “wi” for each base SVEC classifier. It is mathematically formulated as follows:
(7)wi⟶∑i=1nbixi.In the above equation (7), “wi” indicates the initialized weight of base SVEC classifier “bixi,” and “xi” indicates the input data. Afterward, negative gradient “α” of base SVEC classifier is mathematically given as follows:
(8)α=axi−bxi2.From the above equation (8), “axi” indicates the actual classification outcome, and “bxi” points out observed classification result using base SVEC classifier. Then, the GEBSVC technique fits a base SVEC classifier “bxi” to negative gradient “α” by using input data, and it is mathematically provided as follows:
(9)bixi=X,axi−bxi.In the above equation (9), GEBSVC technique updates the weights of base SVEC classifiers depended on the estimated negative gradient. It is mathematically formulated as follows:
(10)wi¯⟶∑i=1nwixi.From the above equation (10), “wi¯” points out the updated weight of base classifier “bixi.” If the weight of the base classifier is improved, then the SVEC classifier identifies the profile injection attack with lesser negative gradient. Rani et al. [28] developed machine learning algorithms for detecting the shilling attack in the recommender system, but genuine user profile was not distinguished from attack profile with minimal error. Thus, the GEBSVC technique determines the best gradient descent step-size for obtaining the strong classifier results and thus accurately detects the genuine user profile and attacker profile.In GEBSVC technique, base classifier with higher weight value is identified as the best gradient descent step-size, and it is given as follows:(11)yi=argmaxnwbixi.From the above mathematical representation (11), “yi” denotes the final results of a strong classifier for an input data. argmaxnw is considered to detect the base SVEC classifier with higher weight. Lastly, GEBSVC technique utilizes the determined best gradient descent step size as a strong classifier for classifying the user profile as genuine user and attack user with maximum accuracy and minimal time. Therefore, the MEMF-GEBSVC approach has a higher detection rate of profile injection assaults.Algorithm 1: Gradient Support Vector Entropy Boosting Classifier.
Input: Number of user rating dataX=x1,x2,x3,..xm with extracted features
Output: Profile injection attack detection
Step 1:Begin
Step 2: For each input data ‘xi’
Step 3:  Create ‘n’ number of base SVEC classifier
Step 4:  For base classifier ‘bixi’
Step 5:    Initialize weight ‘wi’ using (7)
Step 6:    Calculate negative gradient ‘α’ using (8)
Step 7:    Fitbixi to a negative gradient using (9)
Step 8:    Update weights ‘wi¯’ using (10)
Step 9:    Determine best gradient descent step-size as strong classifier using
(11)
Step 10:    Strong classifier provides accurate classification results‘yi’
Step 11:  End for
Step 12: End for
Step 13: Effectively identify the genuine user profile and attack profile predicts
Step 14: EndAlgorithm1 shows the process involved in GEBSVC technique for classifying the user profile as genuine user or attacker. To begin with GEBSVC technique, the number of base classifier results is obtained for each input data. For each base classifier, weight value is assigned in GEBSVC technique. Afterward, negative gradient is computed for all the results of base classifier. Subsequently, GEBSVC fits a negative gradient for all the base classifiers. The weights are updated with respect to the loss function. Lastly, input data is classified into normal user or attacker. From that, the profile injection attack is effectively detected in the collaborative recommendation systems. Therefore, MEMF-GEBSVC technique improves the performance of attack detection with higher accuracy and precision with less time.


## 2.1. Multivariate Empirical Mode Decomposition-Based Feature Extraction

The proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique starts to perform the feature extraction for decreasing the time consumption of profile injection attack detection. Feature extraction is employed to obtain the features for attack detection. Multivariate Empirical Mode Decomposition (MEMF) is applied for feature extraction in MEMF-GEBSVC technique. MEMF is a data-driven method for accomplishing multi-scale decomposition. MEMF divides the time series data into different component for further analysis [23]. Let consider, user rating series data “X=x1,x2,x3,..xm” is used as input from MovieLens 1 M dataset. Each input data includes “n” number of features. MEMF is applied to decrease the given data into collection of intrinsic mode functions (IMF).Change the keyspace: changes keyspace replication as well as the ability to activate or disable the commit log.Modify the materialized view: Cassandra 3.0 and subsequent versions support changing the table attributes of a materialized view.Change your role: this function allows you to change your password and establish superuser or login preferences.Change the table, change the type, change the user, change the batch, and create an aggregate.Thus, the MEMF decomposes the given input data into number of components (i.e. intrinsic mode functions) and residual and it is mathematically expressed as follows,(1)xt=Et+∑i=1nhti.In the above equation (1), “xt” is the input data, and “Et” denotes the residual and a number of components intrinsic mode functions hti where i=1,2,⋯.n. After the decomposition, number of features from the dataset is extracted in MEMF-GEBSVC technique for decreasing the time requirement of attack detection. The first IMF is obtained as follows.Initially, point set is created depended on the Hammersley sequence for sampling on an (n−1) sphere. Then, the projection pθktt=1T of multivariate input data xtt=1T is computed and along a direction vector x for all k giving pθktt=1T. After that, time point tiθk is located to according to maxima of the set of projected data pθktt=1T. Interpolate tiθk,xtiθk for all the for all values of k to obtain multivariate envelope curves eθktk=1K. After that, mean mt of the envelope curves for a set of K direction vectors are computed as follows:
(2)mt=1K∑k=1Keθkt.Files are to be used as input. The data for the MapReduce task is contained in the input files Input Format is as follows: following that, Input Format specifies how these input files should be divided and read.The following components are included: Input Splits, Record Readers, Mappers, Combiners, Partitioners, Shuffling and Sorting, and Record Readers.The MapReduce approach had been modified in the book to include the execution phases, which had been previously published.In the above equation (2), mean mt of set of K direction vectors is determined. The difference between the data and mean value is the first component h1. It is mathematically given by
(3)ht=xt−mt.In the above equation (3), “ht” is the intrinsic mode functions. If the ht satisfies the stoppage criterion for multivariate IMF, apply the above procedure to xt−ht; otherwise, apply it to ht.The stopping condition for multivariate IMF is similar for univariate IMFs with the exception of balance imperative for number of extrema and zero intersections that is not forced as extrema cannot be legitimately characterized for the multivariate information. By projection, MEMF straightforwardly forms multivariate information to create the adjusted IMFs. Then, the entropy of IMF function (IMEn) is computed using the below equation:(4)IMEnk,q,r=sampEnSIMFkt,q,r.In the above equation (4), “q” is the window length, “r” is the resistance, and SIMFk compares to the combined IMF aggregate up to scale k. From that, all the IMFs of users are obtained to find attack in the collaborative recommendation systems.


## 2.2. Gradient Support Vector Entropy Boosting Classifier Technique

On the feature extraction that is completed, Gradient Support Vector Entropy Boosting Classifier (GEBSVC) is applied in MEMF-GEBSVC technique to improve the prediction accuracy of user rating series data. Zhou et al. [1] developed deep learning-based approach for detecting recommendation attack (DL-DRA) to classify the attack profile and genuine profile. The developed approach learns directly from the low-level rating data. However, accuracy performance was not improved [38]. In contrast to conventional works, GEBSVC is introduced by using support vector entropy classifier (SVEC) and gradient boosting classification. GEBSVC integrates the outputs of several base SVEC classifiers for creating the strong and robust classifier. This is achieved by applying many of weak SVEC classifier to lessen the classification error of user profiles [39].With the PARTITION BY command, you may get aggregated columns for each record in the selected table. We have 15 entries in the database, which means the query output SQL PARTITION BY returns 15 rows as well. GROUP BY, on the other hand, returns a single row for each group in the result set.Let us consider a MovieLens 1 M dataset that comprises the set of user rating series data with “n” features represented as X=x1,x2,x3,..xm where “m” denotes the total number of data in the dataset. Each user rating data is trained with the help of weak SVEC classifier. The SVEC classifier is designated as “x1,y1,x2,y2,⋯xn,yn” where “di“ denotes the set of training samples (i.e., input user rating data), and “yi” denotes the output (attacker profile). The base SVEC is a discriminative classifier to partition the positive and negative samples by using marginal hyperplane. Here, positive samples refer to the attacker profile, and negative samples refer to the genuine user profile. In order to detect the profile injection attack, base SVEC finds the optimal marginal hyperplane to categorize the each input data via the entropy method.In GEBSVC, the entropy method uses a split approach. Based on the class label, entropy is calculated in base SVEC. The best split is calculated in weak SVEC to find the accurate class of user profile. The base SVEC carry out the classification process through detecting the split with the maximal information gain. Batmaz et al. [27] designed classification approach to find the shilling attack in the collaborative recommender system, but the precision of attack detection was not at required level.Consider set of samples “S=d1,d2,d3,..dN.” If “S” is partitioned into “S1” and “S2” intervals by boundary “B,” then the entropy after spilt is computed using the below equation.
(5)IS,B=S1SEntS1+S2SEntS2.In the above equation (5), the probability of class “i” in interval “Si” is computed through partitioning the number of samples of class “i” in “Si” by total samples in “S.” It is mathematically given by
(6)EntS1=−∑i=1kPilog2Pi.By using equations (5) and (6), boundary reduces the entropy function. Overall, potential boundaries are selected as a binary discretization for categorizing the each input data into a two classes (i.e., genuine user profile and attacker profile). This process is repeated until stopping criterion is obtained. In order to increase the accuracy of profile injection attack detection, boosting classification is performed in using GEBSVC technique. Yang and Niu (2021) introduced the genre trust-based recommender system to avoid the shilling attacks in recommender systems, but the recall rate was lower.In proposed technique, GEBSVC creates “n” number of base SVEC classifier results for each input data. Followed by this, GEBSVC technique assigns the weight value “wi” for each base SVEC classifier. It is mathematically formulated as follows:
(7)wi⟶∑i=1nbixi.In the above equation (7), “wi” indicates the initialized weight of base SVEC classifier “bixi,” and “xi” indicates the input data. Afterward, negative gradient “α” of base SVEC classifier is mathematically given as follows:
(8)α=axi−bxi2.From the above equation (8), “axi” indicates the actual classification outcome, and “bxi” points out observed classification result using base SVEC classifier. Then, the GEBSVC technique fits a base SVEC classifier “bxi” to negative gradient “α” by using input data, and it is mathematically provided as follows:
(9)bixi=X,axi−bxi.In the above equation (9), GEBSVC technique updates the weights of base SVEC classifiers depended on the estimated negative gradient. It is mathematically formulated as follows:
(10)wi¯⟶∑i=1nwixi.From the above equation (10), “wi¯” points out the updated weight of base classifier “bixi.” If the weight of the base classifier is improved, then the SVEC classifier identifies the profile injection attack with lesser negative gradient. Rani et al. [28] developed machine learning algorithms for detecting the shilling attack in the recommender system, but genuine user profile was not distinguished from attack profile with minimal error. Thus, the GEBSVC technique determines the best gradient descent step-size for obtaining the strong classifier results and thus accurately detects the genuine user profile and attacker profile.In GEBSVC technique, base classifier with higher weight value is identified as the best gradient descent step-size, and it is given as follows:(11)yi=argmaxnwbixi.From the above mathematical representation (11), “yi” denotes the final results of a strong classifier for an input data. argmaxnw is considered to detect the base SVEC classifier with higher weight. Lastly, GEBSVC technique utilizes the determined best gradient descent step size as a strong classifier for classifying the user profile as genuine user and attack user with maximum accuracy and minimal time. Therefore, the MEMF-GEBSVC approach has a higher detection rate of profile injection assaults.Algorithm 1: Gradient Support Vector Entropy Boosting Classifier.
Input: Number of user rating dataX=x1,x2,x3,..xm with extracted features
Output: Profile injection attack detection
Step 1:Begin
Step 2: For each input data ‘xi’
Step 3:  Create ‘n’ number of base SVEC classifier
Step 4:  For base classifier ‘bixi’
Step 5:    Initialize weight ‘wi’ using (7)
Step 6:    Calculate negative gradient ‘α’ using (8)
Step 7:    Fitbixi to a negative gradient using (9)
Step 8:    Update weights ‘wi¯’ using (10)
Step 9:    Determine best gradient descent step-size as strong classifier using
(11)
Step 10:    Strong classifier provides accurate classification results‘yi’
Step 11:  End for
Step 12: End for
Step 13: Effectively identify the genuine user profile and attack profile predicts
Step 14: EndAlgorithm1 shows the process involved in GEBSVC technique for classifying the user profile as genuine user or attacker. To begin with GEBSVC technique, the number of base classifier results is obtained for each input data. For each base classifier, weight value is assigned in GEBSVC technique. Afterward, negative gradient is computed for all the results of base classifier. Subsequently, GEBSVC fits a negative gradient for all the base classifiers. The weights are updated with respect to the loss function. Lastly, input data is classified into normal user or attacker. From that, the profile injection attack is effectively detected in the collaborative recommendation systems. Therefore, MEMF-GEBSVC technique improves the performance of attack detection with higher accuracy and precision with less time.


## 3. Experimental Settings

The performance of proposed Multivariate Empirical Mode Decomposition-Based Gradient Support Vector Entropy Boosting Classifier (MEMF-GEBSVC) technique is implemented in JAVA language. Proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique uses the MovieLens 1 M dataset for analyzing the results of profile injection attack detection in the collaborative recommendation systems. MovieLens 1 M dataset comprises the data about movies and their ratings. It comprises various files, namely, movies.dat, ratings.dat, and users.dat. The dataset contains data 1,000,000 ratings from the 3,900 movies made by 6,040 MovieLens users. With the help of user ratings about the movies, profile injection attack detection is carried out. Proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique results are compared with existing deep learning-based approach for detecting recommendation attack (DL-DRA) and time series analysis and trust features (TSA–TF). The following are the evaluation measures utilized to verify the proposed and current methodologies:(i)
Attack detection rate(ii)
Attack detection accuracy(iii)
Precision rate(iv)
Recall rate(v)
Execution time


## 4. Results and Discussion

The comparative analysis of the proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique is made with conventional deep learning-based approach for detecting recommendation attack (DL-DRA) introduced by Zhou et al. [1, 18] and time series analysis and trust features (TSA–TF) developed by Yishu and Zhang [9]. The results of proposed and existing classification techniques are provided in the tables and graphs representation.Content mining on the web is the process of collecting meaningful information from the content of online-based publications (web pages). A variety of data kinds are used to create web content, including text, images, audio, and video. Content data is a collection of information that is used to construct a web page. It has the potential to give useful and fascinating patterns regarding user requirements [40]. Web mining techniques may be classified into three categories: web content mining, web structure mining, and web use mining. Web content mining is the most common kind of web mining. In addition to e-commerce web mining, text mining, and management of client behavior, there are various more functional areas.


### 4.1. Performance Analysis of Attack Detection Rate

The ratio of number of users correctly detected as an attacker to the total number of user is described as attack detection rate. The rate of attack detection is determined as follows:(12)ADR=NumberofuseridentifiedasattackerTotalnumberofuser∗100.In the above equation (12), “ADR” refers to the attack detection rate. It is estimated in terms of percentage (%).Sample calculation is as follows:Existing TSA–TF: number of user correctly identified as attacker is 486, and the total number of user is 600. Then, the attack detection rate isADR=486/600∗100=81%Existing DL-DRA: number of user correctly identified as attacker is 516, and the total number of user is 600. Then, the attack detection rate isADR=516/600∗100=86%Proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique: number of user correctly identified as attacker is 546, and the total number of user is 600. Then, the attack detection rate isADR=546/600∗100=91%Table1 illustrates the experimental results of attack detection rate with respect to the different number of users. The performance outcome of attack detection rate using proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique is compared with existing DL-DRA and TSA–TF. In the experimentation process, the number of users is considered in the ranges from 600 to 6000 for 10 iterations. By observing the above table, detection rate of profile injection attack is improved in all the three classification methods [41], but comparatively proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique improves the rate of profile injection attack detection. Graphical view of attack detection rate using proposed and existing methods is provided in Figure 2.Table 1
Comparison of attack detection rate.
Number of users
Attack detection rate (%)
Existing TSA–TF
Existing DL-DRA
Proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique
600
81
86
91
1200
83
87
93
1800
82
86
94
2400
85
88
95
3000
86
89
93
3600
85
88
94
4200
87
90
96
4800
86
88
97
5400
85
87
93
6000
86
88
94Figure 2
Results of attack detection rate.Figure2 demonstrates the result analysis of attack detection rate based on the number of users form the MovieLens 1 M dataset. As represented in the above figure, different colors of cone, i.e., red color, green color, and yellow color indicate the attack detection rate of existing TSA–TF, existing DL-DRA, and proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique, respectively. Results of proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique are compared with the existing TSA–TF and DL-DRA. From Figure 2, it is clearly described that the attack detection rate is effectively increased as compared to other existing methods.The higher rate of attack detection is achieved by means of applying MEMF and GEBSVC algorithms. Initially, the MEMF model is applied to decompose and extract the features for attack detection. Then, the GEBSVC algorithm is employed to classify the user profile as genuine user or attack profile. This helps to increase the attack detection in MEMF-GEBSVC technique than the conventional methods. With the input of 600 users, attack detection rate is obtained as 91% in MEMF-GEBSVC technique, whereas 86% and 81% are obtained in existing TSA–TF and DL-DRA, respectively. This is verified in the above said sample calculation. Therefore, the average results of attack detection rate using proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique are improved by 7% as compared to existing DL-DRA and 11% as compared to existing TSA–TF, respectively.


### 4.2. Performance Analysis of Attack Detection Accuracy

Number of users accurately detected as genuine user or attacker through the classification to the number of users is defined as attack detection accuracy. It is calculated as follows,(13)ADacc=NUGATU∗100.From the above equation (13), “ADacc” refers the attack detection accuracy, “NUGA” refers the number of user correctly detected as genuine user or attacker, and ‘TU’ refers the total number of users. Attack detection accuracy is measured in percentage (%).The JavaScript language is used to execute MongoDB queries. In addition, several tools are available to query MongoDB data using SQL syntax, making it a very simple language to learn. When it comes to querying data, you have an incredible number of choices, operators, expressions, and filters to choose from.Sample calculation is as follows:Existing TSA–TF: number of number of users accurately identified is 498, and the total number of user is 600. Then, the attack detection accuracy isADacc=498/600∗100=83%Existing DL-DRA: number of number of users accurately identified is 528, and the total number of user is 600. Then, the attack detection accuracy isADacc=286/600∗100=88%Proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique: number of number of users accurately identified is 552, and the total number of user is 600. Then, the attack detection accuracy isADacc=552/600∗100=92%Table2 shows the comparison analysis of attack detection accuracy for three methods such as proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique, existing TSA–TF, and existing DL-DRA. The different numbers of users are considered as input which is varied from 600 to 6000. In the experiment conduction, accuracy of attack detection computed and compared with existing methods. The results shows that the attack detection accuracy of proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique is improved than the conventional existing TSA–TF and existing DL-DRA. Chart for attack detection accuracy versus number of users is depicted in Figure 3.Table 2
Comparison of attack detection accuracy.
Number of users
Attack detection accuracy (%)
Existing TSA–TF
Existing DL-DRA
Proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique
600
83
88
92
1200
85
89
94
1800
84
88
93
2400
83
87
95
3000
87
89
92
3600
88
90
93
4200
86
88
94
4800
85
89
96
5400
87
90
95
6000
89
91
96Figure 3
Results of attack detection accuracy.Figure3 shows the performance analysis of attack detection accuracy according to the different numbers of users taken from the given dataset. In order to conduct the experiments, 6000 users are taken from the dataset. Through varying the number of users in each iteration, attack detection accuracy for profile injection attack is computed. The performance of the proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique is compared with the existing TSA–TF and existing DL-DRA. From Figure 3, it is clearly described that the attack detection accuracy is effectively improved in MEMF-GEBSVC technique as compared to existing methods.On the contrary to existing works, MEMF-GEBSVC technique performs significant feature extraction and classification. In the feature extraction, MEMF extracts the features of each user for attack detection. Also, boosting classification is applied to categorize the user profile as genuine or attack profile. This in turns, the profile injection attack detection is effectively performed with higher accuracy. As a result, the profile injection attack detection accuracy of proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique is increased by 6% as compared to existing DL-DRA and 10% as compared to existing TSA–TF, respectively.


### 4.3. Performance Analysis of Precision Rate

Precision rate (PR) is computed as the ratio of number of relevant users correctly detected among the number of users in the experiments. Precision rate is mathematically formulated as follows:
(14)PR=TpTp+Fp∗100.From the equation (14), “Tp” is the true positive (i.e., number of attacker correctly detected as attacker), and Fp is a false positive (incorrectly detected, i.e., genuine user profile is incorrectly detected as attacker). Precision rate is computed in the unit of percentage (%).Sample calculation is as follows:Existing TSA–TF: number of user was correctly identified for grouping the similar items “Tp”=465 and Fp=65, and then the precision rate is computed as follows: PR=465/465+65∗100=87.74%Existing DL-DRA: number of user was correctly identified for grouping the similar items “Tp”=500 and Fp=50, and then the precision rate is computed as follows: PR=500/500+50∗100=90.91%Proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique: number of user was correctly identified for grouping the similar items “Tp”=560 and Fp=23, and then the precision rate is computed as follows:PR=560/560+23∗100=97.05%Table3 shows the comparison of the precision rate using different proposed and existing methods. The performance of precision rate in proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique is compared with existing DL-DRA and existing TSA–TF. Different numbers of uses are taken as input, and it is varied in the ranges of 600 to 6000. From the table observation, the precision rate using all three methods is improved when detecting the attack in the collaborative recommendation systems [42]. As compared to other methods, MEMF-GEBSVC technique increases the precision rate than the other two methods.Table 3
Comparison of precision rate.
Number of users
Precision rate (%)
Existing TSA–TF
Existing DL-DRA
Proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique
600
87.74
90.91
97.05
1200
88.26
91.89
97.22
1800
88.64
91.02
97.25
2400
86.65
90.41
96.36
3000
87.69
89.38
92.47
3600
86.53
88.54
92.49
4200
87.62
90.05
94.44
4800
88.00
91.44
964
5400
87.38
89.54
97.70
6000
84.92
87.70
96.19Figure4 illustrates the results of precision rate based on the different numbers of users (600 to 6000) as input. In order to prove the effectiveness of precision rate, the performance of the proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique is compared with existing DL-DRA and existing TSA–TF. Among the three methods, the proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique considerably increases the precision rate in the profile injection attack detection.Figure 4
Results of precision rate.The higher value of precision rate is obtained by performing Multivariate Empirical Mode Decomposition (MEMF) and Gradient Support Vector Entropy Boosting Classifier (GEBSVC) in MEMF-GEBSVC technique on the contrary to existing works. The MEMF extracts the features of users in the input dataset that are more related to perform profile injection attack detection. Further with the GEBSVC process, proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique classifies each user profile into associated class by means of strong classifier with a higher accuracy. Thus, MEMF-GEBSVC technique increases the precision rate to detect the profile injection attack by classifying the user profiles when compared to other conventional methods. Results of precision rate for MEMF-GEBSVC technique is enhanced by 6% as compared to existing DL-DRA and 10% as compared to existing TSA–TF, respectively.


### 4.4. Performance Analysis of Recall Rate

Recall rate (RR) is referred as sensitivity. RR is measured as the ratio of number of users accurately detected to the total number truly positive results and false negative results. Recall rate is mathematically determined as follows:(15)RR=TpTp+Fn∗100.From the above equation (15), “Tp” is the true positive (i.e., number of attacker correctly detected as attacker), and “Fn” is the false negative (attacker profile is incorrectly detected as genuine profile). Recall rate is determined in percentage (%).Sample calculation is as follows:Existing TSA–TF: number of user was correctly identified for grouping the similar items “Tp”=465 and Fn=70, and then the recall rate is computed as follows: PR=465/465+70∗100=86.92%Existing DL-DRA: number of user was correctly identified for grouping the similar items “Tp”=500 and Fn=50, and then the recall rate is computed as follows: PR=500/500+50∗100=90.91%Proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique: number of user was correctly identified for grouping the similar items “Tp”=560 and Fn=23, and then the recall rate is computed as follows: PR=560/560+23∗100=96.05%Table4 describes the performance analysis of recall rate with respect to the different input users. In order to validate the effectiveness of the proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique, the comparison is made with existing DL-DRA by Zhou et al. [1] and existing TSA–TF by Yishu and Zhang [9]. In the performance analysis, the number of users is considered as input in the ranges of 600 to 6000. As observed in above table, the recall rate is effectively improved in MEMF-GEBSVC technique than the other existing methods.Table 4
Comparison of recall rate.
Number of users
Recall rate (%)
Existing TSA–TF
Existing DL-DRA
Proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique
600
86.92
90.91
96.05
1200
87.44
91.89
95.89
1800
87.76
92.12
97.03
2400
86.4
90.41
97.19
3000
87.14
90.04
92.47
3600
85.98
88.54
91.94
4200
88.09
90.05
93.97
4800
87.18
89.16
95.43
5400
89.03
91.19
96.59
6000
87.63
91.17
96.02Figure5 illustrates the experimental results of recall rate with respect to the diverse number of users. The performance of recall rate for the proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique is compared with existing methods such as DL-DRA and existing TSA–TF. In order to analysis the results, the number of users is considered as a range from 600 to 6000. The above graphical representation shows that the recall rate of MEMF-GEBSVC technique is improved than the existing methods.Figure 5
Results of recall rate.This is because of applying Gradient Support Vector Entropy Boosting Classifier in proposed of MEMF-GEBSVC technique on the contrary to conventional works where it formulates many number of base SVEC classification output for each input data. Proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique estimates the weight value for “n” base classifiers that depends on the negative gradient. This in turns, strong classifier is constructed to efficiently discover attack in the collaborative recommendation system with higher recall rate. Therefore, MEMF-GEBSVC technique increases the recall rate than the existing works. Thus, the results of recall rate using proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique is improved by 5% as compared to existing DL-DRA and 9% as compared to existing TSA–TF, respectively.


### 4.5. Performance Analysis of Execution Time

Amount of time utilized by the algorithm for detecting the profile injection attack through the classification is computed as execution time. Execution time is mathematically calculated as follows:(16)ET=TU∗Tidentifyuserasgenuineorattacker.From the above equation (16), “ET” is the execution time, “TU” is the total number of users, and “T” denotes the time utilized to detect the user as genuine or attacker. Execution time is calculated in terms of milliseconds (ms).Sample calculation is as follows:(i)
Existing TSA–TF: time consumed by algorithm to identify one user as genuine user or attacker is 0.0683 ms, and the execution time is computed asET=0.0683∗600=41ms(ii)
Existing DL-DRA: time consumed by algorithm to identify one user as genuine user or attacker is 0.0583 ms, and the execution time is computed asET=0.0583∗600=35ms(iii)
Proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique: time consumed by algorithm to identify one user as genuine user or attacker is 0.05 ms, and the execution time is computed asET=0.05∗600=30msTable5 reports the performance evaluation of execution time according to the different numbers of users for three methods such as proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique, existing DL-DRA, and existing TSA–TF. During the experiment conduction, execution time is decreased by using three techniques for detecting the profile injection attack. The number of users is taken in the range 600 to 6000 as input. As shown in Table 5, the proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique reduces the execution time when compared to other existing methods.Table 5
Comparison of execution time.
Number of users
Execution time (ms)
Existing TSA–TF
Existing DL-DRA
Proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique
600
41
35
30
1200
43
37
32
1800
45
39
33
2400
47
42
36
3000
48
43
38
3600
52
47
41
4200
55
50
44
4800
58
54
47
5400
61
57
49
6000
64
59
51Figure6 illustrates the result analysis of execution time based on the different numbers of users considered in the range of 600 to 6000 as input for experimentation. The performance of the proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique is compared with the two existing methods to validate the effectiveness of the proposed technique. From the experimental results, it is clearly observed that the proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique effectively minimizes the execution time than the other existing methods.Figure 6
Results of execution time.This is because of application of Multivariate Empirical Mode Decomposition (MEMF) and Gradient Support Vector Entropy Boosting Classifier (GEBSVC) in MEMF-GEBSVC technique [20] on the contrary to traditional works. GEBSVC applied in proposed work merges many base learning models together to create a strong classification output. In addition, GEBSVC is very effective for classifying the complex datasets. From that, the GEBSVC algorithm correctly classifies all the input data with less time. As a result, MEMF-GEBSVC technique minimizes the amount of time consumed to find the profile injection attacks in collaborative recommendation systems. Thus, the output of execution time is reduced in MEMF-GEBSVC technique by 13% as compared to existing DL-DR and 22% as compared to existing TSA–TF, respectively.


## 4.1. Performance Analysis of Attack Detection Rate

The ratio of number of users correctly detected as an attacker to the total number of user is described as attack detection rate. The rate of attack detection is determined as follows:(12)ADR=NumberofuseridentifiedasattackerTotalnumberofuser∗100.In the above equation (12), “ADR” refers to the attack detection rate. It is estimated in terms of percentage (%).Sample calculation is as follows:Existing TSA–TF: number of user correctly identified as attacker is 486, and the total number of user is 600. Then, the attack detection rate isADR=486/600∗100=81%Existing DL-DRA: number of user correctly identified as attacker is 516, and the total number of user is 600. Then, the attack detection rate isADR=516/600∗100=86%Proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique: number of user correctly identified as attacker is 546, and the total number of user is 600. Then, the attack detection rate isADR=546/600∗100=91%Table1 illustrates the experimental results of attack detection rate with respect to the different number of users. The performance outcome of attack detection rate using proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique is compared with existing DL-DRA and TSA–TF. In the experimentation process, the number of users is considered in the ranges from 600 to 6000 for 10 iterations. By observing the above table, detection rate of profile injection attack is improved in all the three classification methods [41], but comparatively proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique improves the rate of profile injection attack detection. Graphical view of attack detection rate using proposed and existing methods is provided in Figure 2.Table 1
Comparison of attack detection rate.
Number of users
Attack detection rate (%)
Existing TSA–TF
Existing DL-DRA
Proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique
600
81
86
91
1200
83
87
93
1800
82
86
94
2400
85
88
95
3000
86
89
93
3600
85
88
94
4200
87
90
96
4800
86
88
97
5400
85
87
93
6000
86
88
94Figure 2
Results of attack detection rate.Figure2 demonstrates the result analysis of attack detection rate based on the number of users form the MovieLens 1 M dataset. As represented in the above figure, different colors of cone, i.e., red color, green color, and yellow color indicate the attack detection rate of existing TSA–TF, existing DL-DRA, and proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique, respectively. Results of proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique are compared with the existing TSA–TF and DL-DRA. From Figure 2, it is clearly described that the attack detection rate is effectively increased as compared to other existing methods.The higher rate of attack detection is achieved by means of applying MEMF and GEBSVC algorithms. Initially, the MEMF model is applied to decompose and extract the features for attack detection. Then, the GEBSVC algorithm is employed to classify the user profile as genuine user or attack profile. This helps to increase the attack detection in MEMF-GEBSVC technique than the conventional methods. With the input of 600 users, attack detection rate is obtained as 91% in MEMF-GEBSVC technique, whereas 86% and 81% are obtained in existing TSA–TF and DL-DRA, respectively. This is verified in the above said sample calculation. Therefore, the average results of attack detection rate using proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique are improved by 7% as compared to existing DL-DRA and 11% as compared to existing TSA–TF, respectively.


## 4.2. Performance Analysis of Attack Detection Accuracy

Number of users accurately detected as genuine user or attacker through the classification to the number of users is defined as attack detection accuracy. It is calculated as follows,(13)ADacc=NUGATU∗100.From the above equation (13), “ADacc” refers the attack detection accuracy, “NUGA” refers the number of user correctly detected as genuine user or attacker, and ‘TU’ refers the total number of users. Attack detection accuracy is measured in percentage (%).The JavaScript language is used to execute MongoDB queries. In addition, several tools are available to query MongoDB data using SQL syntax, making it a very simple language to learn. When it comes to querying data, you have an incredible number of choices, operators, expressions, and filters to choose from.Sample calculation is as follows:Existing TSA–TF: number of number of users accurately identified is 498, and the total number of user is 600. Then, the attack detection accuracy isADacc=498/600∗100=83%Existing DL-DRA: number of number of users accurately identified is 528, and the total number of user is 600. Then, the attack detection accuracy isADacc=286/600∗100=88%Proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique: number of number of users accurately identified is 552, and the total number of user is 600. Then, the attack detection accuracy isADacc=552/600∗100=92%Table2 shows the comparison analysis of attack detection accuracy for three methods such as proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique, existing TSA–TF, and existing DL-DRA. The different numbers of users are considered as input which is varied from 600 to 6000. In the experiment conduction, accuracy of attack detection computed and compared with existing methods. The results shows that the attack detection accuracy of proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique is improved than the conventional existing TSA–TF and existing DL-DRA. Chart for attack detection accuracy versus number of users is depicted in Figure 3.Table 2
Comparison of attack detection accuracy.
Number of users
Attack detection accuracy (%)
Existing TSA–TF
Existing DL-DRA
Proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique
600
83
88
92
1200
85
89
94
1800
84
88
93
2400
83
87
95
3000
87
89
92
3600
88
90
93
4200
86
88
94
4800
85
89
96
5400
87
90
95
6000
89
91
96Figure 3
Results of attack detection accuracy.Figure3 shows the performance analysis of attack detection accuracy according to the different numbers of users taken from the given dataset. In order to conduct the experiments, 6000 users are taken from the dataset. Through varying the number of users in each iteration, attack detection accuracy for profile injection attack is computed. The performance of the proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique is compared with the existing TSA–TF and existing DL-DRA. From Figure 3, it is clearly described that the attack detection accuracy is effectively improved in MEMF-GEBSVC technique as compared to existing methods.On the contrary to existing works, MEMF-GEBSVC technique performs significant feature extraction and classification. In the feature extraction, MEMF extracts the features of each user for attack detection. Also, boosting classification is applied to categorize the user profile as genuine or attack profile. This in turns, the profile injection attack detection is effectively performed with higher accuracy. As a result, the profile injection attack detection accuracy of proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique is increased by 6% as compared to existing DL-DRA and 10% as compared to existing TSA–TF, respectively.


## 4.3. Performance Analysis of Precision Rate

Precision rate (PR) is computed as the ratio of number of relevant users correctly detected among the number of users in the experiments. Precision rate is mathematically formulated as follows:
(14)PR=TpTp+Fp∗100.From the equation (14), “Tp” is the true positive (i.e., number of attacker correctly detected as attacker), and Fp is a false positive (incorrectly detected, i.e., genuine user profile is incorrectly detected as attacker). Precision rate is computed in the unit of percentage (%).Sample calculation is as follows:Existing TSA–TF: number of user was correctly identified for grouping the similar items “Tp”=465 and Fp=65, and then the precision rate is computed as follows: PR=465/465+65∗100=87.74%Existing DL-DRA: number of user was correctly identified for grouping the similar items “Tp”=500 and Fp=50, and then the precision rate is computed as follows: PR=500/500+50∗100=90.91%Proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique: number of user was correctly identified for grouping the similar items “Tp”=560 and Fp=23, and then the precision rate is computed as follows:PR=560/560+23∗100=97.05%Table3 shows the comparison of the precision rate using different proposed and existing methods. The performance of precision rate in proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique is compared with existing DL-DRA and existing TSA–TF. Different numbers of uses are taken as input, and it is varied in the ranges of 600 to 6000. From the table observation, the precision rate using all three methods is improved when detecting the attack in the collaborative recommendation systems [42]. As compared to other methods, MEMF-GEBSVC technique increases the precision rate than the other two methods.Table 3
Comparison of precision rate.
Number of users
Precision rate (%)
Existing TSA–TF
Existing DL-DRA
Proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique
600
87.74
90.91
97.05
1200
88.26
91.89
97.22
1800
88.64
91.02
97.25
2400
86.65
90.41
96.36
3000
87.69
89.38
92.47
3600
86.53
88.54
92.49
4200
87.62
90.05
94.44
4800
88.00
91.44
964
5400
87.38
89.54
97.70
6000
84.92
87.70
96.19Figure4 illustrates the results of precision rate based on the different numbers of users (600 to 6000) as input. In order to prove the effectiveness of precision rate, the performance of the proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique is compared with existing DL-DRA and existing TSA–TF. Among the three methods, the proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique considerably increases the precision rate in the profile injection attack detection.Figure 4
Results of precision rate.The higher value of precision rate is obtained by performing Multivariate Empirical Mode Decomposition (MEMF) and Gradient Support Vector Entropy Boosting Classifier (GEBSVC) in MEMF-GEBSVC technique on the contrary to existing works. The MEMF extracts the features of users in the input dataset that are more related to perform profile injection attack detection. Further with the GEBSVC process, proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique classifies each user profile into associated class by means of strong classifier with a higher accuracy. Thus, MEMF-GEBSVC technique increases the precision rate to detect the profile injection attack by classifying the user profiles when compared to other conventional methods. Results of precision rate for MEMF-GEBSVC technique is enhanced by 6% as compared to existing DL-DRA and 10% as compared to existing TSA–TF, respectively.


## 4.4. Performance Analysis of Recall Rate

Recall rate (RR) is referred as sensitivity. RR is measured as the ratio of number of users accurately detected to the total number truly positive results and false negative results. Recall rate is mathematically determined as follows:(15)RR=TpTp+Fn∗100.From the above equation (15), “Tp” is the true positive (i.e., number of attacker correctly detected as attacker), and “Fn” is the false negative (attacker profile is incorrectly detected as genuine profile). Recall rate is determined in percentage (%).Sample calculation is as follows:Existing TSA–TF: number of user was correctly identified for grouping the similar items “Tp”=465 and Fn=70, and then the recall rate is computed as follows: PR=465/465+70∗100=86.92%Existing DL-DRA: number of user was correctly identified for grouping the similar items “Tp”=500 and Fn=50, and then the recall rate is computed as follows: PR=500/500+50∗100=90.91%Proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique: number of user was correctly identified for grouping the similar items “Tp”=560 and Fn=23, and then the recall rate is computed as follows: PR=560/560+23∗100=96.05%Table4 describes the performance analysis of recall rate with respect to the different input users. In order to validate the effectiveness of the proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique, the comparison is made with existing DL-DRA by Zhou et al. [1] and existing TSA–TF by Yishu and Zhang [9]. In the performance analysis, the number of users is considered as input in the ranges of 600 to 6000. As observed in above table, the recall rate is effectively improved in MEMF-GEBSVC technique than the other existing methods.Table 4
Comparison of recall rate.
Number of users
Recall rate (%)
Existing TSA–TF
Existing DL-DRA
Proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique
600
86.92
90.91
96.05
1200
87.44
91.89
95.89
1800
87.76
92.12
97.03
2400
86.4
90.41
97.19
3000
87.14
90.04
92.47
3600
85.98
88.54
91.94
4200
88.09
90.05
93.97
4800
87.18
89.16
95.43
5400
89.03
91.19
96.59
6000
87.63
91.17
96.02Figure5 illustrates the experimental results of recall rate with respect to the diverse number of users. The performance of recall rate for the proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique is compared with existing methods such as DL-DRA and existing TSA–TF. In order to analysis the results, the number of users is considered as a range from 600 to 6000. The above graphical representation shows that the recall rate of MEMF-GEBSVC technique is improved than the existing methods.Figure 5
Results of recall rate.This is because of applying Gradient Support Vector Entropy Boosting Classifier in proposed of MEMF-GEBSVC technique on the contrary to conventional works where it formulates many number of base SVEC classification output for each input data. Proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique estimates the weight value for “n” base classifiers that depends on the negative gradient. This in turns, strong classifier is constructed to efficiently discover attack in the collaborative recommendation system with higher recall rate. Therefore, MEMF-GEBSVC technique increases the recall rate than the existing works. Thus, the results of recall rate using proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique is improved by 5% as compared to existing DL-DRA and 9% as compared to existing TSA–TF, respectively.


## 4.5. Performance Analysis of Execution Time

Amount of time utilized by the algorithm for detecting the profile injection attack through the classification is computed as execution time. Execution time is mathematically calculated as follows:(16)ET=TU∗Tidentifyuserasgenuineorattacker.From the above equation (16), “ET” is the execution time, “TU” is the total number of users, and “T” denotes the time utilized to detect the user as genuine or attacker. Execution time is calculated in terms of milliseconds (ms).Sample calculation is as follows:(i)
Existing TSA–TF: time consumed by algorithm to identify one user as genuine user or attacker is 0.0683 ms, and the execution time is computed asET=0.0683∗600=41ms(ii)
Existing DL-DRA: time consumed by algorithm to identify one user as genuine user or attacker is 0.0583 ms, and the execution time is computed asET=0.0583∗600=35ms(iii)
Proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique: time consumed by algorithm to identify one user as genuine user or attacker is 0.05 ms, and the execution time is computed asET=0.05∗600=30msTable5 reports the performance evaluation of execution time according to the different numbers of users for three methods such as proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique, existing DL-DRA, and existing TSA–TF. During the experiment conduction, execution time is decreased by using three techniques for detecting the profile injection attack. The number of users is taken in the range 600 to 6000 as input. As shown in Table 5, the proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique reduces the execution time when compared to other existing methods.Table 5
Comparison of execution time.
Number of users
Execution time (ms)
Existing TSA–TF
Existing DL-DRA
Proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique
600
41
35
30
1200
43
37
32
1800
45
39
33
2400
47
42
36
3000
48
43
38
3600
52
47
41
4200
55
50
44
4800
58
54
47
5400
61
57
49
6000
64
59
51Figure6 illustrates the result analysis of execution time based on the different numbers of users considered in the range of 600 to 6000 as input for experimentation. The performance of the proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique is compared with the two existing methods to validate the effectiveness of the proposed technique. From the experimental results, it is clearly observed that the proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique effectively minimizes the execution time than the other existing methods.Figure 6
Results of execution time.This is because of application of Multivariate Empirical Mode Decomposition (MEMF) and Gradient Support Vector Entropy Boosting Classifier (GEBSVC) in MEMF-GEBSVC technique [20] on the contrary to traditional works. GEBSVC applied in proposed work merges many base learning models together to create a strong classification output. In addition, GEBSVC is very effective for classifying the complex datasets. From that, the GEBSVC algorithm correctly classifies all the input data with less time. As a result, MEMF-GEBSVC technique minimizes the amount of time consumed to find the profile injection attacks in collaborative recommendation systems. Thus, the output of execution time is reduced in MEMF-GEBSVC technique by 13% as compared to existing DL-DR and 22% as compared to existing TSA–TF, respectively.


## 5. Conclusion

A novel Multivariate Empirical Mode Decomposition-Based Gradient Support Vector Entropy Boosting Classifier (MEMF-GEBSVC) technique is introduced for detecting the profile injection attack in collaborative recommendation systems. Proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique is employed to find the attack with maximum accuracy and minimal time. MEMF-GEBSVC technique performs feature extraction and classification. At first, Multivariate Empirical Mode Decomposition (MEMF) is applied in proposed technique for extracting the features of users for profile injection attack detection. This helps to lessen the time requirement for attack detection in collaborative recommendation systems. After that, the classification of user profile is accomplished using ensemble technique called Gradient Support Vector Entropy Boosting Classifier (GEBSVC). In the classification process, GEBSVC is applied to classify the user profile as genuine profile and attack profile in the collaborative recommendation systems.Experimental results of proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique were analyzed and compared with existing DL-DRA and TSA–TF. Results shows that the MEMF-GEBSVC technique is outperformed in terms of attack detection rate, accuracy, precision rate, recall rate, and execution time. Thus, the performance of attack detection rate is improved by 9% with the reduction of execution time by 18% as compared to existing methods. Also, the results of attack detection accuracy of proposed MEMF-GEBSVC technique is improved by 8% as compared to existing methods. In addition, precision rate and recall rate of MEMF-GEBSVC technique are increased by 8% and 7% as compared to conventional methods.



---

*Source: 5807690-2022-06-11.xml*