ArticleConference on Computer and Communications Security : proceedings of the ... conference on computer and communications security. ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security2019
How to Accurately and Privately Identify Anomalies.
Article in Conference on Computer and Communications Security : proceedings of the ... conference on computer and communications security. ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- U.S.-U.K. PETs Prize Challenge: Anomaly Detection via Privacy-Enhanced Federated Learning.IEEE transactions on privacy · 2024Article
- Blockchain Based Secure Federated Learning With Local Differential Privacy and Incentivization.IEEE transactions on privacy · 2024Article
- Identifying Anomalies while Preserving Privacy.IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering · 2023Article
- A Guide for Private Outlier Analysis.IEEE letters of the Computer SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Identifying anomalies in data is central to the advancement of science, national security, and finance. However, privacy concerns restrict our ability to analyze data. Can we lift these restrictions and accurately identify anomalies without hurting the privacy of those who contribute their data? We address this question for the most practically relevant case, where a record is considered anomalous relative to other records. We make four contributions. First, we introduce the notion of sensitive privacy, which conceptualizes what it means to privately identify anomalies. Sensitive privacy generalizes the important concept of differential privacy and is amenable to analysis. Importantly, sensitive privacy admits algorithmic constructions that provide strong and practically meaningful privacy and utility guarantees. Second, we show that differential privacy is inherently incapable of accurately and privately identifying anomalies; in this sense, our generalization is necessary. Third, we provide a general compiler that takes as input a differentially private mechanism (which has bad utility for anomaly identification) and transforms it into a sensitively private one. This compiler, which is mostly of theoretical importance, is shown to output a mechanism whose utility greatly improves over the utility of the input mechanism. As our fourth contribution we propose mechanisms for a popular definition of anomaly ((
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.