MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976013083 · doi:10.1109/icdm.2011.120

Privacy Risk in Graph Stream Publishing for Social Network Data

2011· article· en· W1976013083 on OpenAlexaff
Nigel Medforth, Ke Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdversaryComputer scienceSocial network (sociolinguistics)Data publishingOptimal distinctiveness theoryDegree (music)Computer securityGraphTheoretical computer scienceInternet privacyPublishingSocial mediaWorld Wide WebPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To understand how social networks evolve over time, graphs representing the networks need to be published periodically or on-demand. The identity of the participants (nodes) must be anonymized to protect the privacy of the individuals and their relationships (edges) to the other members in the social network. We identify a new form of privacy attack, which we name the degree-trail attack. This attack re-identifies the nodes belonging to a target participant from a sequence of published graphs by comparing the degree of the nodes in the published graphs with the degree evolution of a target. The power of this attack is that the adversary can actively influence the degree of the target individual by interacting with the social network. We show that the adversary can succeed with a high probability even if published graphs are anonymized by strongest known privacy preserving techniques in the literature. Moreover, this success does not depend on the distinctiveness of the target nodes nor require the adversary to behave differently from a normal participant. One of our contributions is a formal method to assess the privacy risk of this type of attacks and empirically study the severity on real social network data.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
Consensus categoriesOpen science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.006
Open science0.0840.195
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.175 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataFrench-language works237,207