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
Evaluating Differentially Private Machine Learning in Practice
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
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Privacy Leakage in Federated Learning in Radiology Reports: A Comparative Evaluation of Tokenizer-Driven Privacy Risks
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 ...
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.