You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
The explosion in volume and variety of data offers enormous potential for research and commercial use. Increased availability of personal data is of particular interest in enabling highly customised services tuned to individual needs. Preserving the privacy of individuals against reidentification attacks in this fast-moving ecosystem poses significant challenges for a one-size fits all approach to anonymisation. In this paper we present ( @math , @math )-anonymisation, an approach that combines the @math -anonymisation and @math -differential privacy models into a single coherent framework, providing privacy guarantees at least as strong as those offered by the individual models. Linking risks of less than 5 are observed in experimental results, even with modest values of @math and @math . Our approach is shown to address well-known limitations of @math -anonymity and @math -differential privacy and is validated in an extensive experimental campaign using openly available datasets.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: Consider a data holder, such as a hospital or a bank, that has a privately held collection of person-specific, field structured data. Suppose the data holder wants to share a version of the data with researchers. How can a data holder release a version of its private data with scientific guarantees that the individuals who are the subjects of the data cannot be re-identified while the data remain practically useful? The solution provided in this paper includes a formal protection model named k-anonymity and a set of accompanying policies for deployment. A release provides k-anonymity protection if the information for each person contained in the release cannot be distinguished from at least k-1 individuals whose information also appears in the release. This paper also examines re-identification attacks that can be realized on releases that adhere to k- anonymity unless accompanying policies are respected. The k-anonymity protection model is important because it forms the basis on which the real-world systems known as Datafly, µ-Argus and k-Similar provide guarantees of privacy protection.

[2]: The k-anonymity privacy requirement for publishing microdata requires that each equivalence class (i.e., a set of records that are indistinguishable from each other with respect to certain "identifying" attributes) contains at least k records. Recently, several authors have recognized that k-anonymity cannot prevent attribute disclosure. The notion of l-diversity has been proposed to address this; l-diversity requires that each equivalence class has at least l well-represented values for each sensitive attribute. In this paper we show that l-diversity has a number of limitations. In particular, it is neither necessary nor sufficient to prevent attribute disclosure. We propose a novel privacy notion called t-closeness, which requires that the distribution of a sensitive attribute in any equivalence class is close to the distribution of the attribute in the overall table (i.e., the distance between the two distributions should be no more than a threshold t). We choose to use the earth mover distance measure for our t-closeness requirement. We discuss the rationale for t-closeness and illustrate its advantages through examples and experiments.
Since Sweeney et. al. [1] proposed the @math -anonymity model, numerous extensions to that model have been proposed to address its weaknesses. As an example, [2] proposes @math -diversity and [2] proposes @math -closeness, both of which protect against inference-based attacks. None of the proposed models consider the combination of other anonymisation protocols.