Redactor: A Data-Centric and Individualized Defense against Inference Attacks
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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".