Differentially Private Linear Regression With Linked Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been increasing demand for establishing privacy-preserving methodologies for modern statistics and machine learning. Differential privacy, a mathematical notion from computer science, is a rising tool offering robust privacy guarantees. Recent work focuses primarily on developing differentially private versions of individual statistical and machine learning tasks, with nontrivial upstream preprocessing typically not incorporated. An important example is when record linkage is done prior to downstream modeling. Record linkage refers to the statistical task of linking two or more data sets of the same group of entities without a unique identifier. This probabilistic procedure brings additional uncertainty to the subsequent task. In this article, we present two differentially private algorithms for linear regression with linked data. In particular, we propose a noisy gradient method and a sufficient statistics perturbation approach for the estimation of regression coefficients. We investigate the privacy–accuracy tradeoff by providing finite-sample error bounds for the estimators, which allows us to understand the relative contributions of linkage error, estimation error, and the cost of privacy. The variances of the estimators are also discussed. We demonstrate the performance of the proposed algorithms through simulations and an application to synthetic 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 | 0.016 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".