On the Risks of Collecting Multidimensional Data Under Local Differential Privacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The private collection of multiple statistics from a population is a fundamental statistical problem. One possible approach to realize this is to rely on the local model of differential privacy (LDP). Numerous LDP protocols have been developed for the task of frequency estimation of single and multiple attributes. These studies mainly focused on improving the utility of the algorithms to ensure the server performs the estimations accurately. In this paper, we investigate privacy threats (re-identification and attribute inference attacks) against LDP protocols for multidimensional data following two state-of-the-art solutions for frequency estimation of multiple attributes. To broaden the scope of our study, we have also experimentally assessed five widely used LDP protocols, namely, generalized randomized response, optimal local hashing, subset selection, RAPPOR and optimal unary encoding. Finally, we also proposed a countermeasure that improves both utility and robustness against the identified threats. Our contributions can help practitioners aiming to collect users' statistics privately to decide which LDP mechanism best fits their needs.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.030 | 0.136 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".