REVIEW 3 cited by
Large-Scale Differentially Private BERT
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
abstract
In this work, we study the large-scale pretraining of BERT-Large with differentially private SGD (DP-SGD). We show that combined with a careful implementation, scaling up the batch size to millions (i.e., mega-batches) improves the utility of the DP-SGD step for BERT; we also enhance its efficiency by using an increasing batch size schedule. Our implementation builds on the recent work of [SVK20], who demonstrated that the overhead of a DP-SGD step is minimized with effective use of JAX [BFH+18, FJL18] primitives in conjunction with the XLA compiler [XLA17]. Our implementation achieves a masked language model accuracy of 60.5% at a batch size of 2M, for $\epsilon = 5.36$. To put this number in perspective, non-private BERT models achieve an accuracy of $\sim$70%.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
A Lightweight Method to Disrupt Memorized Sequences in LLM
A decoding-time intervention that substitutes a small model's probabilities for common function words into a large model's output reduces exact training-data recall by up to 10x with minimal measured quality loss.
-
FlashDP: Private Training Large Language Models with Efficient DP-SGD
FlashDP fuses per-sample gradient computation, norm calculation, clipping, and noise addition into a cache-friendly block-wise all-reduce workflow that avoids explicit per-sample gradient storage and redundant recomputation.
-
SOFT: Selective Data Obfuscation for Protecting LLM Fine-tuning against Membership Inference Attacks
SOFT paraphrases low-loss fine-tuning samples before training, reducing MIA AUC from about 0.82 to about 0.54 across six datasets at roughly 7% perplexity cost.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.