1. 1 Numerical Data Masking Techniques for Maintaining Sub-Domain Characteristics Krish Muralidhar University of Kentucky Rathindra Sarathy Oklahoma State University

2. 2 Ideal Data Utility for Masking Numerical Data Ideally, results of all analyses using the masked data should be identical to that using the original data. Impossible to achieve in practice.

3. 3 Practical Data Utility Results of most analyses using the masked data should be very similar to that using the original data. Performance of the masking technique should be predictable (theory-based methods are preferable over ad hoc methods)

4. 4 Practical Assessment of Data Utility Univariate (Marginal) characteristics Maintain some sufficient statistics –When sufficient statistics are maintained in the masked data, results for analyses based on these statistics using the masked data can be guaranteed to be exactly the same as that using the original data Relationships –Linear –Monotonic –Non-monotonic

5. 5 Sub-domain Characteristics An important component of data utility for Government agencies and users is the need to maintain characteristics of the original data within sub-domains, in the masked data With a few exceptions, this aspect of data utility has NOT been directly addressed when evaluating techniques for masking numerical data

6. 6 Preferred Techniques In this study, we investigate the performance of two techniques in maintaining sub-domain characteristics when masking numerical data. –Sufficiency Based perturbation approach (Burridge 2003; Muralidhar and Sarathy 2007) –Data Shuffling (Muralidhar and Sarathy 2006) Why these two techniques? –These two techniques can maintain certain characteristics for sub-domains exactly –They dominate the performance of other techniques for masking numerical data

7. 7 Sufficiency Based Linear Models X, S, and Y represent the confidential, non-confidential, and masked data, respectively; ε represent the noise term. Σ represents the covariance matrix between variables. Specification of β 2 dictates the extent of relationship between original and masked data

8. 8 Data Shuffling (US Patent # 7200757)

9. 9 Examples Simulated example Census Data In our presentation, we will focus on the simulated data. The manuscript has a complete discussion of the results for the Census data.

10. 10 Simulated Example Number of observations = 50000 Three categorical, non-confidential variables –Gender (Male or Female) –Marital Status (Married or Other) –Age Group (1 to 6) Total of 24 sub-groups Three numerical, confidential variables –Home value (Positive, non-normal) –Mortgage balance (Positive, non-normal) –Net value of assets (normal)

11. 11 Methods Data Shuffling Three Sufficiency based perturbations –Given S Y is conditionally independent of X (d = 0.00) Y is moderately related to X (d = 0.50) Y is closely related to X (d = 0.90) where d are the values of the diagonal elements of the diagonal matrix β 2

12. 12 Evaluation Compare performance of techniques in sub-domains –Disclosure risk Identity (assessed using the procedure by Fuller (1993) Value (assessed by comparing proportion of variance explained in confidential variables, before & after masking) –Data utility Marginal (or univariate) distribution Linear relationship between variables Non-linear relationship between variables

13. 13 Risk of Identity Disclosure

14. 14 Risk of Value Disclosure Perturbed data with d = 0.50, 0.90 results in increased predictive accuracy. Does is matter?

15. 15 Marginal (or Univariate) Distribution (Mortgage Balance) (Entire Data Set)

16. 16 Sub-group Marginal Distribution (Home Value) (Gender = 0, Marital = 0, Age = 1)

17. 17 Product Moment Correlation

18. 18 Non-Linear Relationships

19. 19 Rank Order Correlation

20. 20 Comparison of the Methods Data Shuffling 1.Disclosure risk 1.Identity disclosure risk is 1/n 2.Providing access to masked data does not improve predictive ability [R 2 (X|S,Y) = R 2 (X|S)] 2.The mean, covariance and in fact the entire univariate distributions of masked data are exactly the same as the original data for every sub-group and the entire data set 3.Maintains (asymptotically) 1.Covariance matrix 2.Product moment correlation matrix 3.Rank order correlation matrix for every sub-domain and the overall data set

21. Comparison of the Methods Sufficiency Based Method 1.Disclosure risk is minimized for the perturbed data set when d = 0, but not in the other cases. 2.The univariate distribution of the masked data is very different from the original data. 3.Maintains (exactly) 1.Mean Vector 2.Covariance matrix 3.Product moment correlation for every sub-domain and the entire data set. 4.Does not maintain rank order correlation 21

22. 22 Conclusion If it is known that the data will be used exclusively for traditional, parametric analysis, sufficiency based methods offer the best performance In all other cases, Data shuffling offers the best performance

23. 23 Future Research We need to explore this topic further –Our initial result suggests that both techniques may even be capable of maintaining all types of relationships between the non-confidential variables and the masked variables. Is this true for all cases? –What if arbitrary sub-domains are created by using numerical variables?

24. 24 For more details on our work, please visit: gatton.uky.edu/faculty/muralidhar/maskingpapers We have CD’s with copies of our paper, presentation, and the data sets. We will be happy to share it with you. (krishm@uky.edu or rathin.sarathy@okstate.edu)krishm@uky.edurathin.sarathy@okstate.edu

25. 25 We welcome your questions or comments or suggestions. Thank you.