A Customized Text Sanitization Mechanism with Differential Privacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As privacy issues are receiving increasing attention within the Natural Language Processing (NLP) community, numerous methods have been proposed to sanitize texts subject to differential privacy. However, the state-of-the-art text sanitization mechanisms based on a relaxed notion of metric local differential privacy (MLDP) do not apply to non-metric semantic similarity measures and cannot achieve good privacy-utility trade-offs. To address these limitations, we propose a novel Customized Text sanitization (CusText) mechanism based on the original 𝜖-differential privacy (DP) definition, which is compatible with any similarity measure.Moreover, CusText assigns each input token a customized output set to provide more advanced privacy protection at the token level.Extensive experiments on several benchmark datasets show that CusText achieves a better trade-off between privacy and utility than existing mechanisms.The code is available at https://github.com/sai4july/CusText.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.017 | 0.052 |
| 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".