Designing a Location Trace Anonymization Contest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For a better understanding of anonymization methods for location traces, we have designed and held a location trace anonymization contest that deals with a long trace (400 events per user) and fine-grained locations (1024 regions). In our contest, each team anonymizes her original traces, and then the other teams perform privacy attacks against the anonymized traces. In other words, both defense and attack compete together, which is close to what happens in real life. Prior to our contest, we show that re-identification alone is insufficient as a privacy risk and that trace inference should be added as an additional risk. Specifically, we show an example of anonymization that is perfectly secure against re-identification and is not secure against trace inference. Based on this, our contest evaluates both the re-identification risk and trace inference risk and analyzes their relationship. Through our contest, we show several findings in a situation where both defense and attack compete together. In particular, we show that an anonymization method secure against trace inference is also secure against re-identification under the presence of appropriate pseudonymization. We also report defense and attack algorithms that won first place, and analyze the utility of anonymized traces submitted by teams in various applications such as POI recommendation and geo-data analysis.
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 | 0.022 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".