Diversifying Anonymized Data with Diversity Constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently introduced privacy legislation has aimed to restrict and control the amount of personal data published by companies and shared to third parties. Much of this real data is not only sensitive requiring anonymization, but also contains characteristic details from a variety of individuals. This diversity is desirable in many applications ranging from Web search to drug and product development. Unfortunately, data anonymization techniques have largely ignored diversity in its published result. This inadvertently propagates underlying bias in subsequent data analysis. We study the problem of finding a diverse anonymized data instance where diversity is measured via a set of diversity constraints. We formalize diversity constraints and study their foundations such as implication and satisfiability. We show that determining the existence of a diverse, anonymized instance can be done in PTIME, and we present a clustering-based algorithm. We conduct extensive experiments using real and synthetic data showing the effectiveness of our techniques, and improvement over existing baselines. Our work aligns with recent trends towards responsible data science by coupling diversity with privacy-preserving data publishing.
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 | 0.013 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; 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".