REVIEW 2 cited by
Auditing Private Prediction
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
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Differential privacy (DP) offers a theoretical upper bound on the potential privacy leakage of analgorithm, while empirical auditing establishes a practical lower bound. Auditing techniques exist forDP training algorithms. However machine learning can also be made private at inference. We propose thefirst framework for auditing private prediction where we instantiate adversaries with varying poisoningand query capabilities. This enables us to study the privacy leakage of four private prediction algorithms:PATE [Papernot et al., 2016], CaPC [Choquette-Choo et al., 2020], PromptPATE [Duan et al., 2023],and Private-kNN [Zhu et al., 2020]. To conduct our audit, we introduce novel techniques to empiricallyevaluate privacy leakage in terms of Renyi DP. Our experiments show that (i) the privacy analysis ofprivate prediction can be improved, (ii) algorithms which are easier to poison lead to much higher privacyleakage, and (iii) the privacy leakage is significantly lower for adversaries without query control than thosewith full control.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Federated One-Shot Learning with Data Privacy and Objective-Hiding
A three-stage protocol combining secret sharing and graph-based PIR hides both the federator's target objective and clients' labels in one-shot federated learning.
-
Enhancing One-run Privacy Auditing with Quantile Regression-Based Membership Inference
Applying quantile regression based membership inference scoring to one-run black-box DP-SGD auditing yields tighter empirical privacy lower bounds on CIFAR-10, though the gains are uneven and the efficiency claim is o...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.