ArticleIEEE transactions on privacy2025
Privacy-Preserving Verification of ML Preprocessing via Model Behavior Indicators.
Article in IEEE transactions on privacy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Privacy-preserving verification of preprocessing in federated learning for genomic data.JAMIA open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We present a privacy-preserving framework to verify whether a declared data preprocessing pipeline was correctly applied before training a machine learning model on sensitive data. The verifier has only black-box query access to the model and combines three behavior indicators: shift in prediction accuracy, Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence between output distributions, and explanation vectors from Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME) and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). The method requires neither the original training records nor ground-truth labels. It supports two tasks: (i) a binary decision on correctness and (ii) a multi-class diagnosis identifying which step is missing. Experiments on three tabular datasets (Diabetes, Adult-Income, Student-Record) show that the binary detector maintains over 75% F1 even under strong local differential privacy (
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.