Vol. 5 No. 12 (2025)
Articles

Advanced Data Integrity and Privacy in Machine Learning: Integrating Data Cleaning, Differential Privacy, and Model Robustness

Johnathan Keller
Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom

Published 2025-12-17

Keywords

  • Machine learning,
  • data cleaning,
  • differential privacy,
  • adversarial robustness

How to Cite

Johnathan Keller. (2025). Advanced Data Integrity and Privacy in Machine Learning: Integrating Data Cleaning, Differential Privacy, and Model Robustness. Stanford Database Library of American Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 5(12), 142–146. Retrieved from https://oscarpubhouse.com/index.php/sdlajast/article/view/63

Abstract

The exponential growth of machine learning (ML) applications in contemporary data-driven environments has necessitated rigorous frameworks for ensuring data integrity, privacy, and model reliability. This research explores the intersections of data cleaning, differential privacy, and adversarial robustness within ML pipelines, highlighting their collective significance in maintaining credible and secure predictive systems. Emphasis is placed on the role of automated data cleaning systems, such as NADEEF, in detecting and resolving inconsistencies in heterogeneous datasets, thereby facilitating high-quality training inputs that enhance model generalization (Dallachiesat et al., 2013). Concurrently, differential privacy mechanisms are examined for their capacity to mitigate information leakage while balancing utility, drawing upon seminal frameworks and noise calibration techniques (Dwork, 2008; Dwork et al., 2006; Dwork & Roth, 2014). The paper further addresses the challenges of model underspecification and susceptibility to adversarial manipulation, elucidating their implications for credibility and reproducibility in ML applications (D’Amour et al., 2020; Feinman et al., 2017; Fredrikson et al., 2015). Methodological considerations encompass descriptive analyses of data integration, automated workflow validation, and symbolic reasoning strategies, demonstrating the synergistic potential of combining data-centric and model-centric interventions (Dong & Rekatsinas, 2018; Chandra, 2025; Ling et al., 2023). The discussion contextualizes these frameworks within software engineering practices, considering development methodologies, algorithmic verification, and build management in relation to secure, transparent, and maintainable ML systems (Sommerville, 2015; Anghel et al., 2022; Varanasi, 2019). Finally, this study underscores critical future directions, advocating for adaptive privacy-preserving pipelines, enhanced robustness against adversarial threats, and integrative strategies that bridge data integrity with reliable model reasoning.

References

  1. Dallachiesat, M., Ebaid, A., Eldawy, A., Elmagarmid, A., Ilyas, I. F., Ouzzani, M., & Tang, N. NADEEF: A commodity data cleaning system. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, 2013.
  2. D’Amour, A., Heller, K., Moldovan, D., Adlam, B., Alipanahi, B., Beutel, A., Chen, C., Deaton, J., Eisenstein, J., Hoffman, M. D., Hormozdiari, F., Houlsby, N., Hou, S., Jerfel, G., Karthikesalingam, A., Lucic, M., Ma, Y., McLean, C., Mincu, D., Mitani, A., Montanari, A., Nado, Z., Natarajan, V., Nielson, C., Osborne, T. F., Raman, R., Ramasamy, K., Sayres, R., Schrouff, J., Seneviratne, M., Sequeira, S., Suresh, H., Veitch, V., Vladymyrov, M., Wang, X., Webster, K., Yadlowsky, S., Yun, T., Zhai, X., & Sculley, D. Underspecification Presents Challenges for Credibility in Modern Machine Learning. 2020.
  3. Dong, X. L., & Rekatsinas, T. Data Integration and Machine Learning: A Natural Synergy. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 11(12), 2094–2097, 2018.
  4. Dwork, C. Differential privacy: A survey of results. In Theory and Applications of Models of Computation, 1–19. Springer, 2008.
  5. Dwork, C., McSherry, F., Nissim, K., & Smith, A. Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis. In Theory of Cryptography, 265–284. Springer, 2006.
  6. Dwork, C., & Roth, A. The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy. Found. Trends Theor. Comput. Sci., 9(3–4), 211–407, 2014.
  7. Feinman, R., Curtin, R. R., Shintre, S., & Gardner, A. B. Detecting adversarial samples from artifacts, 2017.
  8. Fredrikson, M., Jha, S., & Ristenpart, T. Model inversion attacks that exploit confidence information and basic countermeasures. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2015.
  9. OpenAI. Using OpenAI o1 Models and GPT-4o Models on ChatGPT. Available online: https://help.openai.com/en/articles/9824965-using-openai-o1-models-and-gpt-4o-models-on-chatgpt (accessed on 1 March 2025).
  10. Varanasi, B. Introducing Maven: A Build Tool for Today’s Java Developers. Apress: New York, NY, USA, 2019.
  11. Sommerville, I. Software Engineering, 10th ed.; Pearson: London, UK, 2015.
  12. Anghel, I. I., Calin, R. S., Nedelea, M. L., Stanica, I. C., Tudose, C., & Boiangiu, C. A. Software Development Methodologies: A Comparative Analysis. UPB Sci. Bull, 83, 45–58, 2022.
  13. Ling, Z., Fang, Y. H., Li, X. L., Huang, Z., Lee, M., Memisevic, R., & Su, H. Deductive Verification of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., 36, 36407–36433, 2023.
  14. Li, L. H., Hessel, J., Yu, Y., Ren, X., Chang, K. W., & Choi, Y. Symbolic Chain-of-Thought Distillation: Small Models Can Also “Think” Step-by-Step. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2665–2679, 2023.
  15. Chandra, R. Automated workflow validation for large language model pipelines. Computer Fraud & Security, 2025(2), 1769–1784.
  16. Cormen, T. H., Leiserson, C., Rivest, R., & Stein, C. Introduction to Algorithms; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2009.