Achieving Data Privacy through Secrecy Views and Null-Based Virtual Updates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We may want to keep sensitive information in a relational database hidden from a user or group thereof. We characterize sensitive data as the extensions of secrecy views. The database, before returning the answers to a query posed by a restricted user, is updated to make the secrecy views empty or a single tuple with null values. Then, a query about any of those views returns no meaningful information. Since the database is not supposed to be physically changed for this purpose, the updates are only virtual, and also minimal. Minimality makes sure that query answers, while being privacy preserving, are also maximally informative. The virtual updates are based on null values as used in the SQL standard. We provide the semantics of secrecy views, virtual updates, and secret answers (SAs) to queries. The different instances resulting from the virtually updates are specified as the models of a logic program with stable model semantics, which becomes the basis for computation of the SAs.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".