Differentially Private Model Selection with Penalized and Constrained Likelihood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary In statistical disclosure control, the goal of data analysis is twofold: the information released must provide accurate and useful statistics about the underlying population of interest, while minimizing the potential for an individual record to be identified. In recent years, the notion of differential privacy has received much attention in theoretical computer science, machine learning and statistics. It provides a rigorous and strong notion of protection for individuals’ sensitive information. A fundamental question is how to incorporate differential privacy in traditional statistical inference procedures. We study model selection in multivariate linear regression under the constraint of differential privacy. We show that model selection procedures based on penalized least squares or likelihood can be made differentially private by a combination of regularization and randomization, and we propose two algorithms to do so. We show that our privacy procedures are consistent under essentially the same conditions as the corresponding non-privacy procedures. We also find that, under differential privacy, the procedure becomes more sensitive to the tuning parameters. We illustrate and evaluate our method by using simulation studies and two real data examples.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".