Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays data sharing among multiple parties has become inevitable in various application domains for diverse reasons, such as decision support, policy development and data mining. Yet, data in its raw format often contains person-specific sensitive information, and publishing such data without proper protection may jeopardize individual privacy. This fact has spawned extensive research on privacy-preserving data publishing (PPDP), which balances the fundamental trade-off between individual privacy and the utility of published data. Early research of PPDP focuses on protecting private and sensitive information in relational and statistical data. However, the recent prevalence of several emerging types of high-dimensional \ndata has rendered unique challenges that prevent traditional PPDP techniques from being directly used. In this thesis, we address the privacy concerns in publishing four types of high-dimensional data, namely set-valued data, trajectory data, sequential data and network data. We develop effective and efficient non-interactive data publishing solutions for various utility requirements. Most of our solutions satisfy a rigorous privacy guarantee known as differential privacy, which has been the de facto standard for privacy protection. This thesis demonstrates that our solutions have exhibited great promise for releasing useful high-dimensional data without endangering individual privacy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.096 | 0.144 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".