Redactor: A Data-Centric and Individualized Defense against Inference Attacks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information leakage is becoming a critical problem as various information becomes publicly available by mistake, and machine learning models train on that data to provide services. As a result, one's private information could easily be memorized by such trained models. Unfortunately, deleting information is out of the question as the data is already exposed to the Web or third-party platforms. Moreover, we cannot necessarily control the labeling process and the model trainings by other parties either. In this setting, we study the problem of targeted disinformation generation where the goal is to dilute the data and thus make a model safer and more robust against inference attacks on a specific target (e.g., a person's profile) by only inserting new data. Our method finds the closest points to the target in the input space that will be labeled as a different class. Since we cannot control the labeling process, we instead conservatively estimate the labels probabilistically by combining decision boundaries of multiple classifiers using data programming techniques. Our experiments show that a probabilistic decision boundary can be a good proxy for labelers, and that our approach is effective in defending against inference attacks and can scale to large data.
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.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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 it