ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026
Reproducibility of social science research using aggregate statistics with noise infused for differential privacy.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2026. 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.
- Reproducibility of social science research using aggregate statistics with noise infused for differential privacy.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Privacy-preserving analytics such as differential privacy are designed to allow the analysis of sensitive datasets while protecting individuals' privacy. Their deployment, however, has been controversial. Critics maintain that statistical noise injected to preserve privacy can degrade the quality and feasibility of social science research. We select a benchmark of empirical findings from 93 published social science studies involving regression analyses over aggregate statistics. We evaluate whether their findings replicate on privacy noise-infused data. Under privacy budgets typical in industry, around 91% of simulated findings still support the original claims at significance level [Formula: see text]. Claims based on weaker original effect sizes are more likely to be nullified or sometimes reversed. We compare distortions caused by privacy noise to those due to measurement errors and other kinds of nonsampling errors common in social statistics, and we find that the marginal impacts of privacy protection are smaller. Moreover, discrepancies due to privacy noise are often much smaller than discrepancies observed in traditional replication and robustness studies.
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.