Table 6 Results of applying the evolved fuzzy rules to the 2000 census microfile
From: Evolutionary approach to violating group anonymity using third-party data
State | Number of outliers in the quantity signal | Number of undisclosed outliers | Number of outliers in the auxiliary quantity Signal | Number of false outliers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Alabama | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
Alaska | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
Arizona | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0 |
California | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 |
Colorado | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
Connecticut | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Florida | 7 | 4 | 4 | 1 |
Georgia | 5 | 1 | 5 | 1 |
Hawaii | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Illinois | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Kansas | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
Kentucky | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
Louisiana | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
Maryland | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Mississippi | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Missouri | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
New Jersey | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
New York | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
North Carolina | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
Ohio | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
Oklahoma | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
Pennsylvania | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 |
Rhode Island | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
South Carolina | 6 | 1 | 5 | 0 |
Tennessee | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
Texas | 7 | 2 | 5 | 0 |
Virginia | 9 | 3 | 6 | 0 |
Washington | 5 | 2 | 3 | 0 |
Total | 98 | 38 | 64 | 4 |