Aggregate Query Answering on Anonymized Tables
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Privacy is a serious concern when microdata need to be released for ad hoc analyses. The privacy goals of existing privacy protection approaches (e.g., k-anonymity and l-diversity) are suitable only for categorical sensitive attributes. Since applying them directly to numerical sensitive attributes (e.g., salary) may result in undesirable information leakage, we propose privacy goals to better capture the need of privacy protection for numerical sensitive attributes. Complementing the desire for privacy is the need to support ad hoc aggregate analyses over microdata. Existing generalization-based anonymization approaches cannot answer aggregate queries with reasonable accuracy. We present a general framework of permutation-based anonymization to support accurate answering of aggregate queries and show that, for the same grouping, permutation-based techniques can always answer aggregate queries more accurately than generalization-based approaches. We further propose several criteria to optimize permutations for accurate answering of aggregate queries, and develop efficient algorithms for each criterion.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.020 | 0.039 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it