MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405203783 · doi:10.1145/3658644.3690373

TabularMark: Watermarking Tabular Datasets for Machine Learning

2024· article· en· W4405203783 on OpenAlexaff
Yihao Zheng, Haocheng Xia, Junyuan Pang, Jinfei Liu, Kui Ren, Lingyang Chu, Yang Cao, Li Xiong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersPrecursory Research for Embryonic Science and TechnologyJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceCore Research for Evolutional Science and TechnologyNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDigital watermarkingComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)USableData miningArtificial intelligenceMachine learningWatermarkImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Watermarking is broadly utilized to protect ownership of shared data while preserving data utility. However, existing watermarking methods for tabular datasets fall short on the desired properties (detectability, non-intrusiveness, and robustness) and only preserve data utility from the perspective of data statistics, ignoring the performance of downstream ML models trained on the datasets. Can we watermark tabular datasets without significantly compromising their utility for training ML models while preventing attackers from training usable ML models on attacked datasets?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesOpen science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.574
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0190.061
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataFrench-language works237,207