# AI-Assisted Statistical Disclosure Control with sdcMicro

#### Matthias Templ

#### 2026-03-08

## Abstract

We present AI-assisted anonymization features for the sdcMicro R package that integrate large language models (LLMs) into the statistical disclosure control workflow. Two exported functions — `AI_createSdcObj()` for variable classification and `AI_applyAnonymization()` for anonymization strategy generation — use structured tool calling to propose, evaluate, and refine anonymization strategies via an agentic optimization loop. The implementation follows a privacy-by-design principle: only metadata (variable names, types, cardinality, and factor levels) is transmitted to the LLM, never the actual microdata. A provider-agnostic interface supports OpenAI, Anthropic, and local LLM deployments. All AI suggestions include transparent reasoning, generate reproducible R code, and require explicit user confirmation. The features are also integrated into the sdcApp Shiny GUI.

# 1 Introduction

Statistical disclosure control (SDC) is a necessary step in preparing microdata for release, aiming to prevent re-identification of individual respondents while preserving the analytical utility of the data (Hundepool et al. 2012; Templ 2017). The sdcMicro package (Templ, Kowarik, and Meindl 2015) provides a comprehensive suite of methods for anonymizing microdata in R (R Core Team 2024), including local suppression, recoding, perturbation, and risk estimation.

However, applying SDC methods effectively requires substantial domain expertise. Practitioners must decide which variables to treat as quasi-identifiers (i.e., variables that, in combination, could enable re-identification), which anonymization techniques to apply, and how to balance disclosure risk against information loss. These decisions depend on the data structure, the release context, and the sensitivity of the variables — making SDC a complex, labor-intensive process.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) offer new possibilities for assisting with such expert tasks. LLMs can process metadata descriptions, suggest variable classifications, and propose strategies consistent with established practices (Brown et al. 2020; Chen et al. 2021). However, integrating LLMs into statistical workflows raises important concerns about data privacy, reproducibility, and user control.

This vignette introduces the AI-assisted anonymization features in sdcMicro, which address these challenges through three design principles:

1. Privacy by design: Only metadata (variable names, types, cardinality, and factor levels) is transmitted to the LLM — never the actual microdata.
2. Transparency: Every LLM decision includes human-readable reasoning and generates reproducible R code.
3. User control: All AI suggestions require explicit confirmation; users can review, modify, or reject any proposal.

The implementation consists of two exported functions — `AI_createSdcObj()` for LLM-assisted variable classification and `AI_applyAnonymization()` for LLM-assisted anonymization strategy generation — and a graphical user interface integrated into the existing sdcApp Shiny application.

The remainder of this vignette is organized as follows: Section 2 provides background on SDC and LLM integration challenges. Section 3 describes the software design. Sections 4 and 5 present the two main functions with examples. Section 6 describes the GUI integration. Section 7 discusses advantages, limitations, and related work.

## 1.1 Prerequisites

The AI features require an API key from a supported LLM provider. Set it as an environment variable before using the functions:

    # Option 1: Set in your R session
    Sys.setenv(OPENAI_API_KEY = "sk-...")

    # Option 2: Add to your ~/.Renviron file (persists across sessions)
    # OPENAI_API_KEY=sk-...

    # Verify the key is set
    nzchar(Sys.getenv("OPENAI_API_KEY"))

For Anthropic, use `ANTHROPIC_API_KEY`. For local LLM deployments (Ollama, vLLM), no API key may be needed — see Section 3.2.

The httr and jsonlite packages are required for API communication and are automatically installed as dependencies of sdcMicro.

## 1.2 Quick start

The minimal workflow requires two steps — variable classification and anonymization:

    library(sdcMicro)
    data(testdata)

    # Step 1: AI-assisted variable classification
    sdc <- AI_createSdcObj(dat = testdata, policy = "open")

    # Step 2: AI-assisted anonymization
    sdc <- AI_applyAnonymization(sdc, k = 3)

    # Step 3: Extract the anonymized data
    anon_data <- extractManipData(sdc)
    head(anon_data)

Both functions display the LLM’s reasoning and ask for confirmation before proceeding. The following sections explain each component in detail.

# 2 Background

## 2.1 Statistical disclosure control

The goal of SDC is to transform microdata such that no individual respondent can be re-identified, while preserving as much analytical utility as possible (Hundepool et al. 2012; Templ 2017). Before applying any SDC method, direct identifiers (names, ID numbers, addresses) must be removed from the dataset — this is a prerequisite, not part of the SDC process itself.

SDC methods for the remaining variables can be broadly categorized into methods for categorical variables (recoding, local suppression, post-randomization) and methods for continuous variables (microaggregation, noise addition, rank swapping) (Domingo-Ferrer and Mateo-Sanz 2001). The risk of re-identification is commonly measured through \(k\)-anonymity: a dataset satisfies \(k\)-anonymity if each record is indistinguishable from at least \(k - 1\) other records with respect to the quasi-identifiers (Samarati 2001; Sweeney 2002).

While \(k\)-anonymity is widely used, it has known limitations: it does not protect against attribute disclosure when all records in an equivalence class share the same sensitive value (homogeneity attack). \(\ell\)-diversity (Machanavajjhala et al. 2007) addresses this by requiring that sensitive attributes have at least \(\ell\) distinct values within each equivalence class. The current AI-assisted features in sdcMicro target \(k\)-anonymity; support for \(\ell\)-diversity constraints is planned for future releases.

A central challenge in SDC is selecting the right combination of methods and parameters to achieve adequate protection with minimal information loss. This typically involves iterative experimentation, guided by the practitioner’s experience with the data and release context.

## 2.2 LLMs in statistical workflows

Large language models have demonstrated the ability to process data descriptions, suggest analytical approaches, and generate code (Brown et al. 2020; Chen et al. 2021). More recently, tool-augmented LLMs have shown the ability to select and invoke structured function calls based on task descriptions (Schick et al. 2023). In the SDC context, LLMs can draw on their training in statistical methodology to propose variable classifications and anonymization strategies. However, several challenges must be addressed:

- Data privacy: Sending microdata to external APIs would defeat the purpose of anonymization. Any LLM integration must ensure that only non-identifying metadata is transmitted.
- Reliability: LLM outputs are stochastic and may contain errors. The system must validate all suggestions before execution.
- Reproducibility: Applied methods must be logged as executable R code for audit trails and replication.

## 2.3 Provider landscape

The LLM ecosystem includes multiple providers with different APIs: OpenAI (GPT-4.1, GPT-4o), Anthropic (Claude Sonnet 4), and numerous OpenAI-compatible endpoints (Ollama for local deployment, Azure OpenAI, vLLM, Groq, Together AI). A practical integration should support provider switching without code changes, accommodating institutional preferences and data governance requirements.

# 3 Software design

## 3.1 Architecture overview

The AI-assisted features in sdcMicro are organized in four layers:

1. Provider abstraction (`query_llm()`): A unified interface for communicating with LLMs across different providers.
2. Metadata extraction: Functions that summarize data structure without exposing individual records.
3. Prompt engineering: Domain-specific prompts that guide the LLM toward appropriate SDC decisions.
4. Structured tool calling: A schema-based approach where the LLM specifies method calls as structured objects rather than raw code.

                    ┌─────────────────────┐
                    │   User Interface    │
                    │ (R console / sdcApp)│
                    └────────┬────────────┘
                             │
              ┌──────────────┴──────────────┐
              │                             │
      ┌───────▼───────┐           ┌────────▼────────┐
      │AI_createSdcObj│           │AI_applyAnon…    │
      │(variable roles)│          │(strategies)      │
      └───────┬───────┘           └────────┬────────┘
              │                             │
      ┌───────▼─────────────────────────────▼───────┐
      │         Metadata Extraction Layer           │
      │  (names, types, cardinality, factor levels) │
      │  *** No personal data transmitted ***       │
      └─────────────────┬───────────────────────────┘
                        │
              ┌─────────▼─────────┐
              │    query_llm()    │
              │ Provider-agnostic │
              └───┬───────┬───┬───┘
                  │       │   │
            OpenAI  Anthropic  Custom

## 3.2 Privacy by design

The most critical design decision is that no personal data is ever transmitted to the LLM. The metadata extraction layer (`extract_variable_metadata()` and `summarize_sdcObj_structure()`) produces only:

- Variable names and data types (factor, numeric, character)
- Number of unique values per variable
- Factor level labels (e.g., `"male"`, `"female"` — category names, not individual records)
- Aggregate risk metrics (\(k\)-anonymity violation counts)

This means that even if the LLM provider retains query data, no individual records are exposed. The metadata is equivalent to what would appear in a codebook or data dictionary — public information about the data structure.

## 3.3 Provider-agnostic LLM access

The `query_llm()` function provides a unified interface supporting three provider modes:

    # OpenAI (default)
    query_llm(prompt, provider = "openai")

    # Anthropic (native Messages API)
    query_llm(prompt, provider = "anthropic")

    # Any OpenAI-compatible endpoint (Ollama, Azure, vLLM, etc.)
    query_llm(prompt, provider = "custom",
              base_url = "http://localhost:11434/v1",
              model = "llama3")

API keys are auto-detected from environment variables (`OPENAI_API_KEY`, `ANTHROPIC_API_KEY`, or the generic `LLM_API_KEY`), with an interactive prompt as fallback in console sessions. Provider-specific differences (Anthropic’s `x-api-key` header, `anthropic-version` field, system prompt placement) are handled transparently.

## 3.4 Structured tool calling

Rather than asking the LLM to generate raw R code — which would require complex parsing, validation, and carry injection risks — the system uses structured tool calling (a mechanism where the LLM outputs structured JSON conforming to pre-defined schemas, rather than free-form text). Six tool schemas are defined:

Tool | Parameters | Purpose
--- | --- | ---
`groupAndRename` | `var`, `before`, `after` | Merge factor levels in a categorical variable
`localSuppression` | `k` | Enforce \(k\)-anonymity via cell suppression
`microaggregation` | `variables`, `method` | Aggregate numerical variables
`addNoise` | `variables`, `noise` | Add noise to numerical variables
`pram` | — | Post-randomization method (PRAM) for categorical variables
`topBotCoding` | `column`, `value`, `replacement`, `kind` | Cap extreme values (top/bottom coding)

Note that `localSuppression` is included in the schema for completeness but is always applied automatically by the framework after each strategy — the LLM does not propose it directly.

The LLM returns tool calls as structured JSON objects. For OpenAI and Anthropic, native function/tool calling APIs are used; for custom providers, a text-based JSON fallback is employed. All parameters are validated before execution by `execute_tool_calls()`, which checks that variable names exist in the correct role (key variables for `groupAndRename`, numerical variables for `microaggregation`, etc.).

## 3.5 Combined utility measure

To compare anonymization strategies quantitatively, we define a combined utility score \(U\) that captures the three main dimensions of information loss:

\[U = w_1 \cdot S + w_2 \cdot C + w_3 \cdot \text{IL1s}\]

where \(n\) is the number of records, \(p_{\text{key}}\) is the number of key variables, and \(p_{\text{num}}\) is the number of numerical variables:

- \(S\) (Suppression Rate) = \(\frac{\text{new NAs}}{n \times p_{\text{key}}}\) measures the proportion of values suppressed by `localSuppression()`. Bounded in \([0, 1]\).
- \(C\) (Category Loss) = \(\text{mean}_{j=1}^{p_{\text{key}}}\left(1 - \frac{L_j^{\text{after}}}{L_j^{\text{before}}}\right)\) measures the average reduction in the number of distinct levels (\(L_j\)) across key variables from `groupAndRename()`. Only non-suppressed values are counted, ensuring \(C\) and \(S\) measure orthogonal aspects of information loss. Bounded in \([0, 1]\).
- \(\text{IL1s}\) (Information Loss) = the IL1s measure from `dUtility()` (Mateo-Sanz, Domingo-Ferrer, and Sebé 2004), normalized by \(n \times p_{\text{num}}\). This is the standard-deviation-scaled variant, computed as \(\sum_{i,j} |x_{ij} - \tilde{x}_{ij}| / (\text{sd}(x_j) \sqrt{2})\) divided by the number of cells. Set to 0 if no numerical variables are present. Note that IL1s is not strictly bounded in \([0, 1]\) for large perturbations.

Lower scores indicate better utility preservation. The default weights are \(w_1 = w_2 = w_3 = 1/3\). Since the three components are not on fully commensurable scales, these equal weights are a pragmatic starting point rather than a principled optimum. Users should adjust weights to reflect their priorities — for example, setting \(w_1 = 0.6, w_2 = 0.2, w_3 = 0.2\) prioritizes minimizing suppressions. The weights are automatically normalized to sum to 1, so `weights = c(3, 1, 1)` is equivalent to `c(0.6, 0.2, 0.2)`.

# 4 LLM-assisted variable classification

## 4.1 The `AI_createSdcObj()` function

The first AI-assisted function helps users classify dataset variables into SDC roles. The essential call is:

    sdc <- AI_createSdcObj(dat = testdata, policy = "open")

Additional parameters control the LLM provider (`provider`, `model`, `api_key`, `base_url`), interactive confirmation (`confirm`), and verbosity (`info`). See `?AI_createSdcObj` for all options.

The `policy` parameter provides context to the LLM about the intended data release: `"open"` for publicly downloadable data (requiring stronger protection), `"restricted"` for access via a research data center, and `"confidential"` for limited access under legal agreements.

The function extracts variable metadata from `dat`, constructs a prompt that includes the data-sharing policy context, and queries the LLM for role assignments. The LLM returns a JSON object classifying each variable as one of:

- Key variable (`keyVars`): Categorical quasi-identifiers — variables that describe individuals and could, in combination, enable re-identification (e.g., age group, sex, region)
- Numerical variable (`numVars`): Continuous quasi-identifiers requiring perturbative methods rather than suppression (e.g., income, expenditure)
- PRAM variable (`pramVars`): Variables suitable for the Post-Randomization Method (PRAM), which perturbs categorical values using a transition matrix. Often used for detailed categorical variables such as geographic codes
- Weight variable (`weightVar`): Sampling weight (only relevant for complex survey designs)
- Household ID (`hhId`): Cluster/household identifier (for hierarchical data such as persons within households)
- Strata variable (`strataVar`): Stratification variable

Note that sensitive variables (`sensibleVar` in sdcMicro) are not currently classified by the LLM. If your data contains sensitive attributes (e.g., health status, income class) that require \(\ell\)-diversity checks, set them manually via `createSdcObj()`.

## 4.2 Reasoning transparency

Each classification includes a `reasoning` field explaining the LLM’s rationale:

    library(sdcMicro)
    data(testdata)
    sdc <- AI_createSdcObj(dat = testdata, policy = "open")

    --- LLM Variable Classification ---
    Reasoning:
      keyVars: Variables 'urbrur', 'roof', 'walls', 'water', 'electcon',
        'relat', 'sex' are categorical quasi-identifiers that describe
        individual characteristics and could be used for re-identification.
      numVars: Variables 'expend', 'income', 'savings' are continuous
        and can reveal individual economic status.
      weightVar: 'sampling_weight' represents survey sampling weights.
      hhId: 'ori_hid' identifies household clusters.

    Proposed roles:
      Key variables:   urbrur, roof, walls, water, electcon, relat, sex
      Num. variables:  expend, income, savings
      Weight variable: sampling_weight
      Household ID:    ori_hid

    Accept this classification? [Y/n/q]:

## 4.3 Interactive confirmation

When `confirm = TRUE` (the default), the user must explicitly accept the classification before the `sdcMicroObj` is created. Pressing `n` returns the proposed roles as a list, allowing programmatic editing:

    # Reject and modify
    roles <- AI_createSdcObj(dat = testdata, policy = "open")
    # User presses 'n' — roles is returned as a list
    roles$keyVars <- c(roles$keyVars, "age")  # Add age as key variable
    sdc <- createSdcObj(testdata,
                        keyVars = roles$keyVars,
                        numVars = roles$numVars,
                        weightVar = roles$weightVar,
                        hhId = roles$hhId)

In non-interactive sessions (e.g., batch scripts), confirmation is skipped automatically.

# 5 LLM-assisted anonymization

## 5.1 The `AI_applyAnonymization()` function

The second AI-assisted function implements an agentic loop — an iterative process where the LLM proposes anonymization strategies, receives quantitative feedback, and refines its proposals. The essential call is:

    sdc <- AI_applyAnonymization(sdc, k = 3)

Key parameters include `n_strategies` (number of initial strategies, default 3), `max_iter` (refinement iterations, default 2), and `weights` (utility score weights, default equal). The function also accepts `provider`, `model`, `api_key`, and `base_url` for LLM configuration. When `generateReport = TRUE` (the default), HTML reports are written to the working directory. See `?AI_applyAnonymization` for all options.

Choosing \(k\): For public-use files, \(k = 5\) is common practice; for scientific-use files with restricted access, \(k = 3\) may suffice. Higher values of \(k\) provide stronger protection at the cost of more information loss.

## 5.2 Agentic loop: batch and refinement

The anonymization proceeds in two phases:

Batch phase. The LLM receives a summary of the `sdcMicroObj` structure (variable names, types, factor levels, current \(k\)-anonymity violations) and proposes `n_strategies` distinct anonymization strategies as structured tool calls. Each strategy is evaluated on an independent copy of the `sdcMicroObj`:

1. Execute the tool calls (recoding, noise addition, etc.)
2. Apply `localSuppression(k = k)` to enforce \(k\)-anonymity on the key variables
3. Compute the utility score \(U\)

Refinement phase. The LLM receives the utility scores from all evaluated strategies and is asked to propose up to `max_iter` improved strategies. This iterative feedback loop allows the LLM to condition on the quantitative results and adjust its proposals accordingly.

      ┌───────────────────┐
      │ Summarize sdcObj  │
      │ (metadata only)   │
      └────────┬──────────┘
               │
      ┌────────▼──────────┐
      │ LLM: propose N    │
      │ strategies        │
      └────────┬──────────┘
               │
      ┌────────▼──────────┐     ┌──────────────────┐
      │ Evaluate each on  │────►│ Utility scores   │
      │ copy + localSupp  │     │ S, C, IL1s, U    │
      └───────────────────┘     └────────┬─────────┘
                                         │
                                ┌────────▼──────────┐
                                │ LLM: refine based │
                                │ on scores         │
                                │ (max_iter rounds)  │
                                └────────┬──────────┘
                                         │
                                ┌────────▼──────────┐
                                │ Select best       │
                                │ strategy (min U)  │
                                └───────────────────┘

A key insight is that `localSuppression()` always achieves \(k\)-anonymity on the categorical key variables, by suppressing (setting to `NA`) the minimum number of values needed. The optimization therefore focuses on minimizing the total information loss by balancing recoding (which increases category loss \(C\) but reduces the need for suppressions) against suppression (which increases the suppression rate \(S\) but preserves category structure).

## 5.3 Example session

    library(sdcMicro)
    data(testdata)

    # Step 1: Create sdcObj with AI-assisted variable classification
    sdc <- AI_createSdcObj(dat = testdata, policy = "open")

    # Step 2: Apply AI-assisted anonymization
    sdc <- AI_applyAnonymization(sdc, k = 3, n_strategies = 3)

A typical console output:

    === Batch phase: requesting 3 strategies ===
      Evaluating conservative...
        U=0.0126 (S=0.0091, C=0.0286, IL1=0.0000)
      Evaluating moderate...
        U=0.0367 (S=0.0071, C=0.0643, IL1=0.0388)
      Evaluating aggressive...
        U=0.3525 (S=0.0057, C=0.1991, IL1=0.8527)
    === Refinement iteration 1/2 ===
        U=0.0282 (S=0.0084, C=0.0762, IL1=0.0000)
    === Refinement iteration 2/2 ===
        U=0.0198 (S=0.0088, C=0.0505, IL1=0.0000)

    === Best strategy: 'conservative' (U=0.0126) ===
      Suppression rate: 0.0091
      Category loss:    0.0286
      IL1:              0.0000

    k-violations after: 0 / 4580

    Accept this strategy? [Y/n/q]:

The output shows three initial strategies with different aggressiveness levels, followed by two refinement iterations. Each line reports the total utility score \(U\) and its three components in parentheses: suppression rate \(S\), category loss \(C\), and numerical information loss IL1s. The conservative strategy wins with \(U = 0.0126\), meaning less than 1% of values were suppressed, less than 3% of categorical diversity was reduced, and no numerical perturbation was applied. All 4580 records satisfy 3-anonymity (zero violations).

After accepting a strategy, extract the anonymized data and review the results:

    # Extract anonymized data
    anon_data <- extractManipData(sdc)

    # Review risk and utility
    print(sdc, "risk")

## 5.4 Adjusting utility weights

Users can prioritize different aspects of information loss depending on the intended use of the data. If the downstream analysis requires exact category counts (e.g., cross-tabulations by region), penalize category loss more heavily. If the analysis uses regression on continuous variables, penalize numerical information loss:

    # Minimize suppressions (prefer recoding over suppression)
    sdc <- AI_applyAnonymization(sdc, k = 3,
      weights = c(0.6, 0.2, 0.2))

    # Preserve categorical diversity (for cross-tabulations)
    sdc <- AI_applyAnonymization(sdc, k = 3,
      weights = c(0.2, 0.6, 0.2))

## 5.5 Using different LLM providers

The choice of provider depends on the institutional context. Use OpenAI or Anthropic for the highest-quality strategy suggestions. Use a local LLM when data governance policies prohibit sending even metadata to external services — this provides the strongest privacy guarantee, as nothing leaves the local machine:

    # OpenAI (default) — best strategy quality
    sdc <- AI_applyAnonymization(sdc, k = 3)

    # Anthropic Claude — comparable quality, different provider
    sdc <- AI_applyAnonymization(sdc, k = 3, provider = "anthropic")

    # Local Ollama instance — maximum privacy, no external communication
    sdc <- AI_applyAnonymization(sdc, k = 3,
      provider = "custom",
      base_url = "http://localhost:11434/v1",
      model = "llama3")

Note that smaller local models may produce lower-quality strategies, particularly for the structured JSON output format required by the tool calling mechanism. GPT-4.1, Claude Sonnet 4, and similar frontier models consistently produce well-formed strategies.

# 6 Graphical user interface

The AI-assisted features described in the preceding sections are fully integrated into sdcApp, the Shiny-based graphical user interface shipped with sdcMicro and launched via `sdcApp()`. The GUI exposes the same functionality as the programmatic API through three complementary entry points, making the AI capabilities accessible to users who prefer interactive point-and-click workflows.

## 6.1 AI variable suggestion

The first entry point appears during SDC problem setup. When a dataset has been loaded and the user is assigning variable roles (key variables, numerical variables, weight, household ID, etc.), a button labelled “AI suggest variables” invokes `AI_createSdcObj()` in the background. The LLM receives only the variable metadata — names, types, cardinalities, and factor levels — and returns a proposed classification together with a natural-language explanation. The result is presented in a modal dialog that shows the reasoning behind each role assignment and a summary of the proposed configuration.

If the user clicks Accept, the suggestions are automatically transferred into the setup table: radio buttons for key/numerical classification and checkboxes for weight, household ID, and PRAM roles are set accordingly. The user retains full control and can adjust any of these selections before finalising the SDC problem. This workflow lowers the barrier to entry for practitioners who may be unfamiliar with the subtleties of variable role assignment, while preserving the human-in-the-loop principle.

## 6.2 AI-Assisted anonymization panel

The second and primary entry point is a dedicated AI-Assisted tab in the application’s navigation bar. Its sidebar collects the configuration parameters required by the agentic loop: the LLM provider and model, the API key (with an indicator that shows whether a key was detected in the environment), the desired \(k\)-anonymity level, the number of candidate strategies, and the utility weight preset. Four presets are offered — Balanced, Minimize suppressions, Preserve categories, and Custom — where the last option reveals three sliders for manual weight specification (\(w_1\), \(w_2\), \(w_3\)). When the Custom provider is selected, an additional field for the base URL appears, enabling connection to locally deployed models.

Clicking “Run AI Anonymization” triggers the agentic loop described in Section 5. A progress bar tracks the LLM query and strategy evaluation. Once the loop completes, the results are displayed in an interactive table whose columns report the strategy name (e.g., “conservative”, “moderate”, “aggressive”), the combined utility score \(U\), and its three component scores. The row corresponding to the best strategy is highlighted in green.

Selecting a row in the table reveals two additional panels: a text block with the LLM’s reasoning and a collapsible section labelled “Methods applied” that shows the exact R code the strategy would execute. Three action buttons govern the next step. Apply selected executes the strategy on the current `sdcMicroObj`, generates the corresponding reproducible R code, and presents a confirmation dialog recommending that the user review the Risk/Utility tab. Refine further feeds the current scores back to the LLM for an additional iteration of the refinement phase; the resulting improved strategy is appended to the table. Cancel discards the results without modifying the data.

A third, convenience entry point is provided by a green “AI-assisted” button at the top of the Anonymize sidebar, which navigates directly to the AI-Assisted tab.

## 6.3 Reproducibility

Reproducibility is a central design goal of the GUI integration. When a strategy is applied through the AI-Assisted panel, the corresponding R code is automatically appended to the internal reproducibility script that sdcApp maintains throughout a session. Users can navigate to the Reproducibility tab at any time to inspect, copy, or download the complete analysis script. The script captures both manually applied methods and AI-suggested ones in the order they were executed, ensuring that the entire anonymization workflow can be reproduced outside of the GUI in a plain R session.

# 7 Discussion

## 7.1 Advantages and limitations

The AI-assisted approach addresses several practical challenges that arise in traditional manual SDC workflows. Perhaps most significantly, it lowers the expertise barrier: practitioners who are not deeply familiar with the full range of SDC methods can obtain reasonable starting configurations by describing their data to the system and reviewing the LLM’s proposals. The batch-and-refine architecture encourages systematic exploration of the strategy space, evaluating multiple candidate strategies simultaneously rather than following a single path as is common in manual practice. The combined utility score provides a quantitative basis for comparing strategies, moving the selection process from subjective judgement toward a more structured evaluation framework. Throughout this process, transparency is maintained because every suggestion is accompanied by the LLM’s reasoning and the exact R code that would be executed.

These advantages must be weighed against several important limitations. First, the quality of the generated strategies depends directly on the capabilities of the underlying language model. Smaller or less capable models may produce suboptimal parameter choices, particularly when the data structure is complex or when the structured JSON output format is not well supported. Second, cloud-based LLMs incur per-query costs and network latency; local deployment via Ollama eliminates both concerns but requires adequate hardware. Third, and most fundamentally, the AI suggestions should be understood as a starting point rather than a final answer. Domain knowledge about the data, the intended release context, and applicable regulations remains essential for responsible disclosure control. Finally, LLM outputs are inherently stochastic: different runs may produce different strategies even for identical inputs. Setting `temperature = 0` in `query_llm()` improves reproducibility but does not guarantee identical outputs across calls.

## 7.2 Privacy considerations

A central design principle of the implementation is that the LLM never receives the actual microdata. The metadata extraction routines transmit only information equivalent to what would appear in a public codebook: variable names, data types, cardinality statistics, factor level labels, and aggregate risk metrics. Even if the LLM provider retains queries for logging or training purposes, the exposure is limited to this structural description of the dataset.

Users should be aware, however, that variable names and factor level labels can themselves carry sensitive information. In such cases, it is advisable to rename variables or recode levels before invoking the AI features. For environments where no data — not even metadata — may leave the local machine, the provider-agnostic architecture supports deployment of a local LLM through Ollama or any other OpenAI-compatible endpoint, ensuring that all communication remains on-premises.

## 7.3 Comparison with related work

Several established tools provide automated or semi-automated SDC, but none currently incorporate LLM-assisted decision support.

ARX (Prasser et al. 2020) performs an exhaustive search over user-defined generalization hierarchies and offers strong optimality guarantees within its transformation model, but requires the user to specify the set of permissible transformations upfront. The LLM-based approach in sdcMicro complements this style of optimisation by automatically proposing which combination of recoding, suppression, and perturbation operations to apply, informed by the data’s metadata rather than a predefined lattice.

\(\mu\)-Argus and \(\tau\)-Argus (Wolf, Mlodak, and Wilak 2024) provide mature graphical interfaces for microdata and tabular data protection respectively, with built-in rule-based heuristics. Their workflows are well-established in national statistical offices but do not offer the kind of natural-language interaction or adaptive strategy generation that an LLM enables. synthpop (Nowok, Raab, and Dibben 2016) and simPop (Templ et al. 2017) take a fundamentally different approach by generating entirely synthetic datasets rather than perturbing the original records; they do not involve method selection or parameter tuning in the SDC sense and therefore address a complementary use case.

General-purpose AI coding assistants such as ChatGPT or GitHub Copilot can generate R code for anonymization when prompted, but they operate without the safeguards that the structured tool calling architecture provides. In particular, they lack parameter validation against the actual data, do not enforce the separation between metadata and microdata, and cannot evaluate the resulting strategies against quantitative risk and utility metrics. The structured tool calling approach adopted here avoids the fragility of raw code generation while retaining the flexibility to combine multiple SDC methods within a single strategy.

# 8 Summary and outlook

This paper presented AI-assisted anonymization features for the sdcMicro R package. The contribution consists of three components: LLM-assisted variable classification via `AI_createSdcObj()`, an agentic anonymization loop with structured tool calling via `AI_applyAnonymization()`, and full integration of both capabilities into the sdcApp Shiny GUI. Together, these components form a decision-support system that augments — rather than replaces — human expertise in statistical disclosure control.

Three design principles guided the implementation. First, a strict privacy-by-design policy ensures that only metadata is transmitted to the LLM, never the microdata itself. Second, transparency is maintained by exposing the LLM’s reasoning and generating reproducible R code for every suggested operation. Third, user control is preserved through interactive confirmation dialogs at each step, so that no anonymization method is applied without explicit approval.

The provider-agnostic architecture supports commercial LLM services (OpenAI, Anthropic), self-hosted open-weight models via Ollama or any OpenAI-compatible endpoint, and can be extended to additional providers by supplying a base URL and API key. This flexibility allows organisations to balance the trade-off between model capability and data governance requirements according to their own policies.

Several directions for future work emerge from the current implementation. First, the tool calling schema could be extended to support \(\ell\)-diversity constraints and the explicit handling of sensitive variables, broadening the range of privacy models the system can target. Second, systematic benchmarks comparing AI-suggested strategies against expert-crafted configurations across diverse datasets would provide empirical evidence on the practical benefit of the approach. Third, the combined utility score could incorporate additional information loss measures such as propensity scores or the Hellinger distance. Finally, continued improvements in local open-weight language models may soon make it feasible to achieve strategy quality comparable to frontier cloud models in fully air-gapped environments.

# 9 Computational details

The results in this vignette were obtained using R 4.5.2 with sdcMicro 5.8.1. R and all packages used are available from the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN) at https://CRAN.R-project.org/.

The AI features require an API key for a supported LLM provider (OpenAI, Anthropic) or a locally running OpenAI-compatible endpoint. The httr and jsonlite packages are used for API communication. The example session shown in Section 5.2 was generated using GPT-4.1 with `temperature = 0`.

# References

Brown, Tom, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, et al. 2020. “Language Models Are Few-Shot Learners.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: 1877–1901. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2005.14165.
Chen, Mark, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, et al. 2021. “Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code.” arXiv Preprint arXiv:2107.03374. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.03374.
Domingo-Ferrer, Josep, and Josep Maria Mateo-Sanz. 2001. “A Quantitative Comparison of Disclosure Control Methods for Microdata.” Confidentiality, Disclosure and Data Access: Theory and Practical Applications for Statistical Agencies, 111–33.
Hundepool, Anco, Josep Domingo-Ferrer, Luisa Franconi, Sarah Giessing, Eric Schulte Nordholt, Keith Spicer, and Peter-Paul de Wolf. 2012. Statistical Disclosure Control. Wiley Series in Survey Methodology. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118348239.
Machanavajjhala, Ashwin, Daniel Kifer, Johannes Gehrke, and Muthuramakrishnan Venkitasubramaniam. 2007. “L-Diversity: Privacy Beyond k-Anonymity.” ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data 1 (1): 3. https://doi.org/10.1145/1217299.1217302.
Mateo-Sanz, Josep Maria, Josep Domingo-Ferrer, and Francesc Sebé. 2004. “Comparing SDC Methods for Microdata on the Basis of Information Loss and Disclosure Risk.” Privacy in Statistical Databases, 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-25955-8_8.
Nowok, Beata, Gillian M. Raab, and Chris Dibben. 2016. “synthpop: Bespoke Creation of Synthetic Data in R.” Journal of Statistical Software 74 (11): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v074.i11.
Prasser, Fabian, Florian Kohlmayer, Ronald Lautenschläger, and Klaus A. Kuhn. 2020. “ARX – Data Anonymization Tool.” SoftwareX 11: 100389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2019.100389.
R Core Team. 2024. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
Samarati, Pierangela. 2001. “Protecting Respondents’ Identities in Microdata Release.” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 13 (6): 1010–27. https://doi.org/10.1109/69.971193.
Schick, Timo, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Eric Hambro, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. “Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: 68539–51. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.04761.
Sweeney, Latanya. 2002. “K-Anonymity: A Model for Protecting Privacy.” International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 10 (5): 557–70. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218488502001648.
Templ, Matthias. 2017. Statistical Disclosure Control for Microdata: Methods and Applications in R. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50272-4.
Templ, Matthias, Alexander Kowarik, and Bernhard Meindl. 2015. “sdcMicro: Statistical Disclosure Control Methods for Anonymization of Data and Risk Estimation.” Journal of Statistical Software 67 (4): 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i04.
Templ, Matthias, Bernhard Meindl, Alexander Kowarik, and Olivier Dupriez. 2017. “Simulation of Synthetic Complex Data: The R Package simPop.” Journal of Statistical Software 79 (10): 1–38. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v079.i10.
Wolf, Peter-Paul de, Andrzej Mlodak, and Kamil Wilak. 2024. “-ARGUS and -ARGUS: Open Source Software for Statistical Disclosure Control.” In Privacy in Statistical Databases. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-69651-0_6.