Fusion: Privacy-Preserving Distributed Protocol for High-Dimensional Data Mashup
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last decade, several approaches concerning private data release for data mining have been proposed. Data mashup, on the other hand, has recently emerged as a mechanism for integrating data from several data providers. Fusing both techniques to generate mashup data in a distributed environment while providing privacy and utility guarantees on the output involves several challenges. That is, how to ensure that no unnecessary information is leaked to the other parties during the mashup process, how to ensure the mashup data is protected against certain privacy threats, and how to handle the high-dimensional nature of the mashup data while guaranteeing high data utility. In this paper, we present Fusion, a privacy-preserving multi-party protocol for data mashup with guaranteed LKC-privacy for the purpose of data mining. Experiments on real-life data demonstrate that the anonymous mashup data provide better data utility, the approach can handle high dimensional data, and it is scalable with respect to the data size.
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".