Bibliographic record
Abstract
Garg, Goldwasser and Vasudevan (Eurocrypt 2020) invented the notion of deletion-compliance to formally model the “right to be forgotten’, a concept that confers individuals more control over their digital data. A requirement of deletion-compliance is strong privacy for the deletion requesters since no outside observer must be able to tell if deleted data was ever present in the first place. Naturally, many real world systems where information can flow across users are automatically ruled out.The main thesis of this paper is that deletion-compliance is a standalone notion, distinct from privacy. We present an alternative definition that meaningfully captures deletion-compliance without any privacy implications. This allows broader class of data collectors to demonstrate compliance to deletion requests and to be paired with various notions of privacy. Our new definition has several appealing properties:•It is implied by the stronger definition of Garg et al. under natural conditions, and is equivalent when we add a strong privacy requirement.•It is naturally composable with minimal assumptions.•Its requirements are met by data structure implementations that do not reveal the order of operations, a concept known as history-independence.Along the way, we discuss the many challenges that remain in providing a universal definition of compliance to the “right to be forgotten.”
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 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.094 | 0.274 |
| 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".