Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Evaluating Differentially Private Machine Learning in Practice

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1902.08874 v4 pith:2UQ7BDOK submitted 2019-02-24 cs.LG cs.CRstat.ML

Evaluating Differentially Private Machine Learning in Practice

classification cs.LG cs.CRstat.ML
keywords privacylearningguaranteeslossmachineusedacceptablebudget
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Differential privacy is a strong notion for privacy that can be used to prove formal guarantees, in terms of a privacy budget, $\epsilon$, about how much information is leaked by a mechanism. However, implementations of privacy-preserving machine learning often select large values of $\epsilon$ in order to get acceptable utility of the model, with little understanding of the impact of such choices on meaningful privacy. Moreover, in scenarios where iterative learning procedures are used, differential privacy variants that offer tighter analyses are used which appear to reduce the needed privacy budget but present poorly understood trade-offs between privacy and utility. In this paper, we quantify the impact of these choices on privacy in experiments with logistic regression and neural network models. Our main finding is that there is a huge gap between the upper bounds on privacy loss that can be guaranteed, even with advanced mechanisms, and the effective privacy loss that can be measured using current inference attacks. Current mechanisms for differentially private machine learning rarely offer acceptable utility-privacy trade-offs with guarantees for complex learning tasks: settings that provide limited accuracy loss provide meaningless privacy guarantees, and settings that provide strong privacy guarantees result in useless models. Code for the experiments can be found here: https://github.com/bargavj/EvaluatingDPML

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Privacy Leakage in Federated Learning in Radiology Reports: A Comparative Evaluation of Tokenizer-Driven Privacy Risks

    cs.LG 2026-07 reject novelty 5.0

    Up to 44% of radiology report sentences were exactly reconstructed from federated-learning gradients in this worst-case attack, with the RadBERT tokenizer leaking the most—but the paper's own re-run did not reproduce ...