MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415444011 · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3624312

Mitigating Authorship Attribution in Social Media Texts: A Privacy by Translation Approach

2025· article· en· W4415444011 on OpenAlexafffund
Sakib Shahriar, Rozita Dara, Fattane Zarrinkalam

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAuthorship attributionSocial mediaAdversarial systemAttributionIdentification (biology)Process (computing)Differential privacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The exponential growth of social media usage has raised significant privacy concerns, especially regarding adversarial authorship attribution. Social media texts pose distinctive privacy risks for authorship attribution due to their informal, high-variance style. We study Privacy by Translation (PbT) for this setting and its evaluated hybrid with Differential Privacy (PbT+DP) to mitigate authorship identification while preserving utility for social media mental-health classification. Our method transforms social media texts into semantically equivalent forms that obscure authorial style. PbT is formulated in a two-step process (translation and learning) to optimize the trade-off between privacy and utility. We assess the effectiveness of our method across various languages and compare it with existing methods. Our findings reveal that a hybrid approach combining DP with PbT outperforms standalone PbT, DP, and existing methods in balancing privacy and utility in social media mental health classification. The hybrid method reduces adversarial authorship classification by 89.1% and maintains an efficient privacy-utility ratio of 0.40. We also investigate the transformation of linguistic features, including stylistic, syntactic, and semantic elements, to understand their roles in authorship attribution.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.265 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicHate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionFrench-language works237,207