Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42853662›Full record

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.

Ryan Steed, Eduardo Abraham Schnadower Mustri, Alessandro Acquisti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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 · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ryan SteedHeinz College of Information Systems and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213.ORCID 0000-0002-2345-2670
Eduardo Abraham Schnadower MustriHeinz College of Information Systems and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213.
Alessandro AcquistiSloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139.ORCID 0000-0001-6582-6178

Funding

National Science Foundation (NSF) 2319919
6 · The paper itself

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

differential privacypublic statisticsreproducibility

Identifiers

PMID42853662
PMCPMC13663772

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.