跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要中的风险指调查受访者被再识别的隐私风险,未涉及金融尾部风险或所列其他经济计量方向,故不分类。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Chris Skinner
Natalie Shlomo

使用对数线性模型评估调查微观数据的再识别风险

研究问题
外部数据与调查记录的分类关键变量可被匹配时,如何选择对数线性模型,并判断模型设定对再识别风险的影响?
方法与思路
作者构造面向风险估计准确性的模型设定准则,识别欠拟合并讨论过拟合,采用前向选择评估文件和记录层面风险。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,新准则与泊松过度离散检验相关;普查抽样评价显示前向选择估计良好,但多个良好模型难以区分。
阅读关注点
应核对风险指标与匹配威胁的定义、稀疏表中的模型选择准则,以及欠拟合和过拟合诊断的证据强弱。
阅读边界
仅据 OpenAlex 索引摘要,稿件版本未注明;过拟合识别较弱,部分数值工作未报告,不能将特定数据表现泛化。

原文摘要

This article considers the assessment of the risk of identification of respondents in survey microdata, in the context of applications at the United Kingdom (UK) Office for National Statistics (ONS). The threat comes from the matching of categorical “key“ variables between microdata records and external data sources and from the use of log-linear models to facilitate matching. While the potential use of such statistical models is well established in the literature, little consideration has been given to model specification or to the sensitivity of risk assessment to this specification. In numerical work not reported here, we have found that standard techniques for selecting log-linear models, such as chi-squared goodness-of-fit tests, provide little guidance regarding the accuracy of risk estimation for the very sparse tables generated by typical applications at ONS, for example, tables with millions of cells formed by cross-classifying six key variables, with sample sizes of 10 or 100,000. In this article we develop new criteria for assessing the specification of a log-linear model in relation to the accuracy of risk estimates. We find that, within a class of “reasonable“ models, risk estimates tend to decrease as the complexity of the model increases. We develop criteria that detect “underfitting“ (associated with overestimation of the risk). The criteria may also reveal “overfitting“ (associated with underestimation) although not so clearly, so we suggest employing a forward model selection approach. Our criteria turn out to be related to established methods of testing for overdispersion in Poisson log-linear models. We show how our approach may be used for both file-level and record-level measures of risk. We evaluate the proposed procedures using samples drawn from the 2001 UK Census where the true risks can be determined and show that a forward selection approach leads to good risk estimates. There are several “good“ models between which our approach provides little discrimination. The risk estimates are found to be stable across these models, implying a form of robustness. We also apply our approach to a large survey dataset. There is no indication that increasing the sample size necessarily leads to the selection of a more complex model. The risk estimates for this application display more variation but suggest a suitable upper bound.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文