Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/3605801.3605820acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescncitConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

Solving the Performance Issues of Epsilon Estimation Method in Differentially Private ERM: Analysis, Solution and Evaluation

Published: 09 August 2023 Publication History

Abstract

The study of differential privacy has recently garnered significant attention due to its ability to provide rigorous privacy protection for data analysis tasks. However, researchers are grappling with the critical balance between ensuring strong privacy protection and maintaining the utility of the model. While existing theories recommend selecting a privacy requirement and optimizing utility accordingly, practical product requirements often have strict accuracy constraints. As a result, privacy considerations may not always take precedence. Consequently, privacy guarantees are often adjusted to align with the expected level of utility. This mismatch highlights the challenge of training a highly private model that also meets the desired level of utility. Li et al. recently introduced a practical method for estimating utility at any privacy budget level, which can aid in achieving the aforementioned objective. However, upon analysis, our team has uncovered performance deficiencies in this approach. In this paper, we comprehensively examine the performance issues of Li’s method, identify their underlying cause, and present effective solutions. Our experimental results demonstrate that our proposed solutions can greatly improve the performance of Li’s method in a highly efficient manner.

References

[1]
Raef Bassily, Adam Smith, and Abhradeep Thakurta. 2014. Private empirical risk minimization: Efficient algorithms and tight error bounds. In Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE, 464–473.
[2]
Kamalika Chaudhuri and Claire Monteleoni. 2008. Privacy-preserving logistic regression. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, D. Koller, D. Schuurmans, Y. Bengio, and L. Bottou (Eds.). Vol. 21. Curran Associates, Inc.
[3]
Kamalika Chaudhuri, Claire Monteleoni, and Anand D Sarwate. 2011. Differentially private empirical risk minimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research 12, Mar (2011), 1069–1109.
[4]
Cynthia Dwork, Aaron Roth, 2014. The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy. Foundations and Trends® in Theoretical Computer Science 9, 3–4 (2014), 211–407.
[5]
Matt Fredrikson, Somesh Jha, and Thomas Ristenpart. 2015. Model inversion attacks that exploit confidence information and basic countermeasures. In Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, 1322–1333.
[6]
Marco Gaboardi, James Honaker, Gary King, Kobbi Nissim, Jonathan R. Ullman, and Salil P. Vadhan. 2016. PSI (Ψ): a Private data Sharing Interface. CoRR abs/1609.04340 (2016). arxiv:1609.04340
[7]
Karan Ganju, Qi Wang, Wei Yang, Carl A Gunter, and Nikita Borisov. 2018. Property inference attacks on fully connected neural networks using permutation invariant representations. In Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, 619–633.
[8]
Chang Ge, Xi He, Ihab F. Ilyas, and Ashwin Machanavajjhala. 2019. APEx: Accuracy-Aware Differentially Private Data Exploration. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Management of Data. Association for Computing Machinery, 177–194.
[9]
Roger Iyengar, Joseph P Near, Dawn Song, Om Thakkar, Abhradeep Thakurta, and Lun Wang. 2019. Towards Practical Differentially Private Convex Optimization. In Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE, 299–316.
[10]
Shiva Prasad Kasiviswanathan, Homin K. Lee, Kobbi Nissim, Sofya Raskhodnikova, and Adam Smith. 2008. What Can We Learn Privately?. In 2008 49th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. 531–540. https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS.2008.27
[11]
Daniel Kifer, Adam Smith, and Abhradeep Thakurta. 2012. Private convex empirical risk minimization and high-dimensional regression. In Annual Conference on Learning Theory, Vol. 23. JMLR.org, 25.1–25.40.
[12]
Yuzhe Li, Yong Liu, Bo Li, Weiping Wang, and Nan Liu. 2023. Towards practical differential privacy in data analysis: Understanding the effect of epsilon on utility in private ERM. Computers & Security 128 (2023), 103147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2023.103147
[13]
Katrina Ligett, Seth Neel, Aaron Roth, Bo Waggoner, and Steven Z. Wu. 2017. Accuracy First: Selecting a Differential Privacy Level for Accuracy-Constrained ERM. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. Curran Associates Inc., 2563–2573.
[14]
Elisabet Lobo-Vesga, Alejandro Russo, and Marco Gaboardi. 2020. A Programming Framework for Differential Privacy with Accuracy Concentration Bounds. In 2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). 411–428.
[15]
Luca Melis, Congzheng Song, Emiliano De Cristofaro, and Vitaly Shmatikov. 2019. Exploiting Unintended Feature Leakage in Collaborative Learning. In Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE, 691–706.
[16]
Prashanth Mohan, Abhradeep Thakurta, Elaine Shi, Dawn Song, and David Culler. 2012. GUPT: Privacy Preserving Data Analysis Made Easy. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. Association for Computing Machinery, 349–360.
[17]
Shai Shalev-Shwartz and Nathan Srebro. 2008. SVM Optimization: Inverse Dependence on Training Set Size. In International Conference on Machine Learning. ACM, 928–935.
[18]
Reza Shokri, Marco Stronati, Congzheng Song, and Vitaly Shmatikov. 2017. Membership inference attacks against machine learning models. In Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE Computer Society, 3–18.
[19]
Florian Tramèr, Fan Zhang, Ari Juels, Michael K Reiter, and Thomas Ristenpart. 2016. Stealing machine learning models via prediction apis. In USENIX Security Symposium. USENIX Association, 601–618.
[20]
Di Wang, Minwei Ye, and Jinhui Xu. 2017. Differentially private empirical risk minimization revisited: Faster and more general. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2722–2731.
[21]
Samuel Yeom, Irene Giacomelli, Matt Fredrikson, and Somesh Jha. 2018. Privacy Risk in Machine Learning: Analyzing the Connection to Overfitting. In Computer Security Foundations Symposium. IEEE Computer Society, 268–282.

Index Terms

  1. Solving the Performance Issues of Epsilon Estimation Method in Differentially Private ERM: Analysis, Solution and Evaluation

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      CNCIT '23: Proceedings of the 2023 2nd International Conference on Networks, Communications and Information Technology
      June 2023
      253 pages
      ISBN:9798400700620
      DOI:10.1145/3605801
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 09 August 2023

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. differential privacy
      2. machine learning
      3. parameter selection

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Conference

      CNCIT 2023

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • 0
        Total Citations
      • 285
        Total Downloads
      • Downloads (Last 12 months)203
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)25
      Reflects downloads up to 16 Feb 2025

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      View Options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format.

      HTML Format

      Login options

      Figures

      Tables

      Media

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media