Differentially private confidence intervals for proportions under stratified random sampling
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
Confidence intervals are a fundamental tool for quantifying the uncertainty of parameters of interest. With the increase of data privacy awareness, developing a private version of confidence intervals has gained growing attention from both statisticians and computer scientists. Differential privacy is a state-of-the-art framework for analyzing privacy loss when releasing statistics computed from sensitive data. Recent work has been done around differentially private confidence intervals, yet to the best of our knowledge, rigorous methodologies on differentially private confidence intervals in the context of survey sampling have not been studied. In this paper, we propose three differentially private algorithms for constructing confidence intervals for proportions under stratified random sampling. We articulate two variants of differential privacy that make sense for data from stratified sampling designs, analyzing each of our algorithms within one of these two variants. We establish analytical privacy guarantees and asymptotic properties of the estimators. In addition, we conduct simulation studies to evaluate the proposed private confidence intervals, and two applications to the 1940 Census data are provided.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 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