Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consider a database D with records containing history of individuals' transactions, that has been de-identified, i.e., the variables that uniquely associate records with individuals have been removed from the data. An adversary de-anonymizes D via a linkage attack if using some auxiliary information about a certain individual in the database, it can determine which record of D corresponds to such individual. One example of this is given in the article Robust De-anonymization of Large Sparse Datasets, by Narayanan and Shmatikov [19], which shows that an anonymized database containing records with ratings of different movies rented by customers of Netflix, could in fact be de-anonymized using very little auxiliary information, even with errors. Besides the heuristic de-anonymization of the Netflix database, Narayanan and Shmatikov provide interesting theoretical results about database de-anonymization that an adversary can produce under general conditions. In this article we revisit these theoretical results, and work them further. Our first contribution is to exhibit different simple cases in which the algorithm Scoreboard, meant to produce the theoretical de-anonymization in [19], fails to do so. By requiring 1-sim to be a pseudo-metric, and that the algorithm producing the de-anonymization outputs a record with minimum support among the candidates, we obtain and prove deanonymization results similar to those described in [19]. We then consider a new hypothesis, motivated by the fact (observed in heuristic de-anonymizations) that when the auxiliary information contains values corresponding to rare attributes, the de-anonymization achieved is stronger. We formalize this using the notion on long tail [4], and give new theorems expressing the level of de-anonymization in terms of the parameters of the tail of the database D. The improvement in the deanonymization is reflected in the fact that when at least one value in the auxiliary information corresponds to a rare attribute of D, the size of auxiliary information could be reduced in about 50%, provided that D has a long tail. We then explore a microdata file from the Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health 2004 [22], where the records reflect the answers of the survey respondents. While many of the variables are related to health issues, some other variables a related to characteristics that individuals may disclose easily, such as physical activities (sports) or demographic characteristics. We perform an experiment with this microdata file and show that using only some non-sensitive attribute values it is possible, with a significant probability, to link those values to the corresponding full record.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.031 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".