Data Obfuscation Through Latent Space Projection for Privacy-Preserving AI Governance: Case Studies in Medical Diagnosis and Finance Fraud Detection
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
Background: The increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) systems into critical societal sectors has created an urgent demand for robust privacy-preserving methods. Traditional approaches such as differential privacy and homomorphic encryption often struggle to maintain an effective balance between protecting sensitive information and preserving data utility for AI applications. This challenge has become particularly acute as organizations must comply with evolving AI governance frameworks while maintaining the effectiveness of their AI systems. Objective: This paper aims to introduce and validate data obfuscation through latent space projection (LSP), a novel privacy-preserving technique designed to enhance AI governance and ensure responsible AI compliance. The primary goal is to develop a method that can effectively protect sensitive data while maintaining essential features necessary for AI model training and inference, thereby addressing the limitations of existing privacy-preserving approaches. Methods: We developed LSP using a combination of advanced machine learning techniques, specifically leveraging autoencoder architectures and adversarial training. The method projects sensitive data into a lower-dimensional latent space, where it separates sensitive from nonsensitive information. This separation enables precise control over privacy-utility trade-offs. We validated LSP through comprehensive experiments on benchmark datasets and implemented 2 real-world case studies: a health care application focusing on cancer diagnosis and a financial services application analyzing fraud detection. Results: LSP demonstrated superior performance across multiple evaluation metrics. In image classification tasks, the method achieved 98.7% accuracy while maintaining strong privacy protection, providing 97.3% effectiveness against sensitive attribute inference attacks. This performance significantly exceeded that of traditional anonymization and privacy-preserving methods. The real-world case studies further validated LSP's effectiveness, showing robust performance in both health care and financial applications. Additionally, LSP demonstrated strong alignment with global AI governance frameworks, including the General Data Protection Regulation, the California Consumer Privacy Act, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Conclusions: LSP represents a significant advancement in privacy-preserving AI, offering a promising approach to developing AI systems that respect individual privacy while delivering valuable insights. By embedding privacy protection directly within the machine learning pipeline, LSP contributes to key principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability. Future research directions include developing theoretical privacy guarantees, exploring integration with federated learning systems, and enhancing latent space interpretability. These developments position LSP as a crucial tool for advancing ethical AI practices and ensuring responsible technology deployment in privacy-sensitive domains.
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 | 0.059 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.050 |
| 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 it