Data Protection: Privacy-Preserving Data Collection With Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ubiquitous data collection has raised potential risks of leaking physical and private attribute information associated with individuals in a collected dataset. A data collector who wants to collect data for provisioning its machine learning (ML)-based services requires establishing a privacy-preserving data collection protocol for data owners. In this work, we design, implement, and evaluate a novel privacy-preserving data collection protocol. Specifically, we validate the functionality of the data collection protocol on behalf of data owners. First, the ML-based services are not always predefined, it is challenging for a data collector to combat inference of private attributes and user identity from the collected data while maintaining the utility of data. To address the challenge, we reconstruct the data by designing a data transformation model based on the autoencoder and clustering. Second, it is necessary to ensure that the reconstructed data satisfy certain privacy-preserving properties as untrusted data collectors can provide the data transformation models. Therefore, we utilize detection models and design an efficient enclave-based mechanism to validate that the reconstructed data's private attribute estimation probability is bounded by the predefined thresholds. Extensive experiments demonstrate our protocol's effectiveness, such as significantly reducing the accuracy of private attribute detection
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".