MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889537237 · doi:10.14778/3229863.3236267

ConTPL

2018· article· en· W2889537237 on OpenAlexaff
Yang Cao, Li Xiong, Masatoshi Yoshikawa, Yonghui Xiao, Si Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the VLDB Endowment · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsDifferential privacyComputer scienceBounding overwatchData stream miningThe InternetInformation privacyVisualizationData miningComputer securityArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many real-world systems, such as Internet of Thing, sensitive data streams are collected and analyzed continually. To protect privacy, a number of mechanisms are designed to achieve ϵ-differential privacy for processing sensitive streaming data, whose privacy loss is considered to be rigorously controlled within a given parameter ϵ . However, most of the existing studies do not consider the effect of temporal correlations among the continuously generated data on the privacy loss. Our recent work reveals that, the privacy loss of a traditional DP mechanism (e.g., Laplace mechanism) may not be bounded by ϵ due to temporal correlations. We call such unexpected privacy loss Temporal Privacy Leakage (TPL). In this demonstration, we design a system, ConTPL, which is able to automatically convert an existing differentially private streaming data release mechanism into one bounding TPL within a specified level. ConTPL also provides an interactive interface and real-time visualization to help data curator to understand and explore the effect of different parameters on TPL.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0700.045

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the VLDB EndowmentSame topicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataFrench-language works237,207