We propose Bayesian differential privacy, a relaxation of differential privacy for similarly distributed data, that provides sharper privacy guarantees in difficult scenarios, such as deep learning. We also derive a general privacy accounting method for iterative learning algorithms under Bayesian differential privacy and show that it is a generalisation of the well-known moments accountant. Our experiments demonstrate significant advantage over the state-of-the-art differential privacy bounds for deep learning models on classic supervised learning tasks, bringing the privacy budget from 8 down to 0.5 in some cases. Lower amounts of injected noise also benefit the model accuracy and the speed of learning. Additionally, we demonstrate applicability of Bayesian differential privacy to variational inference and achieve the state-of-the-art privacy-accuracy trade-off.
Privacy analysis in the context of differentially private ML is often done and lies in finding parameters @math (or bounds on it) that apply to the entire learning process, as opposed to fixing @math beforehand and calibrating noise to satisfy it. Due to the nature of such analysis (keeping track and accumulating some quantity representing privacy loss during training) it is referred to as . The simplest accounting can be done by using basic and advanced composition theorems @cite_33 . However, bounds on @math obtained this way are prohibitively loose: using basic composition for big neural networks, @math can be in order of millions, so the DP guarantee loses any meaning.
@cite_33
1603362050 2962958653 2949611647 2154086287
In this work we analyze the sample complexity of classification by differentially private algorithms. Differential privacy is a strong and well-studied notion of privacy introduced by (2006) that ensures that the output of an algorithm leaks little information about the data point provided by any of the participating individuals. Sample complexity of private PAC and agnostic learning was studied in a number of prior works starting with (, 2008) but a number of basic questions still remain open, most notably whether learning with privacy requires more samples than learning without privacy. We show that the sample complexity of learning with (pure) differential privacy can be arbitrarily higher than the sample complexity of learning without the privacy constraint or the sample complexity of learning with approximate differential privacy. Our second contribution and the main tool is an equivalence between the sample complexity of (pure) differentially private learning of a concept class @math (or @math ) and the randomized one-way communication complexity of the evaluation problem for concepts from @math . Using this equivalence we prove the following bounds: 1. @math , where @math is the Littlestone's (1987) dimension characterizing the number of mistakes in the online-mistake-bound learning model. Known bounds on @math then imply that @math can be much higher than the VC-dimension of @math . 2. For any @math , there exists a class @math such that @math but @math . 3. For any @math , there exists a class @math such that the sample complexity of (pure) @math -differentially private PAC learning is @math but the sample complexity of the relaxed @math -differentially private PAC learning is @math . This resolves an open problem of (2013b). In this work we analyze the sample complexity of classification by differentially private algorithms. Differential privacy is a strong and well-studied notion of privacy introduced by [Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 3876, Springer, New York, 2006, pp. 265--284] that ensures that the output of an algorithm leaks little information about the data point provided by any of the participating individuals. Sample complexity of private probably approximately correct (PAC) and agnostic learning was studied in a number of prior works starting with [SIAM J. Comput., 40 (2011), pp. 793--826]. However, a number of basic questions remain open [A. Beimel, S. P. Kasiviswanathan, and K. Nissim, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 5978, Springer, New York, 2006, pp. 437--454; K. Chaudhuri and D. Hsu, Proceedings of Conference in Learning Theory, 2011, pp. 155--186; A. Beimel, K. Nissim, and U. Stemmer, Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science, 2013, pp. 9... We compare the sample complexity of private learning [ 2008] and sanitization [ 2008] under pure @math -differential privacy [ TCC 2006] and approximate @math -differential privacy [ Eurocrypt 2006]. We show that the sample complexity of these tasks under approximate differential privacy can be significantly lower than that under pure differential privacy. We define a family of optimization problems, which we call Quasi-Concave Promise Problems, that generalizes some of our considered tasks. We observe that a quasi-concave promise problem can be privately approximated using a solution to a smaller instance of a quasi-concave promise problem. This allows us to construct an efficient recursive algorithm solving such problems privately. Specifically, we construct private learners for point functions, threshold functions, and axis-aligned rectangles in high dimension. Similarly, we construct sanitizers for point functions and threshold functions. We also examine the sample complexity of label-private learners, a relaxation of private learning where the learner is required to only protect the privacy of the labels in the sample. We show that the VC dimension completely characterizes the sample complexity of such learners, that is, the sample complexity of learning with label privacy is equal (up to constants) to learning without privacy. A mechanism for releasing information about a statistical database with sensitive data must resolve a trade-off between utility and privacy. Publishing fully accurate information maximizes utility while minimizing privacy, while publishing random noise accomplishes the opposite. Privacy can be rigorously quantified using the framework of differential privacy, which requires that a mechanism's output distribution is nearly the same whether or not a given database row is included or excluded. The goal of this paper is strong and general utility guarantees, subject to differential privacy. We pursue mechanisms that guarantee near-optimal utility to every potential user, independent of its side information (modeled as a prior distribution over query results) and preferences (modeled via a loss function). Our main result is: for each fixed count query and differential privacy level, there is a geometric mechanism M* -- a discrete variant of the simple and well-studied Laplace mechanism -- that is simultaneously expected loss-minimizing for every possible user, subject to the differential privacy constraint. This is an extremely strong utility guarantee: every potential user u, no matter what its side information and preferences, derives as much utility from M* as from interacting with a differentially private mechanism Mu that is optimally tailored to u. More precisely, for every user u there is an optimal mechanism Mu for it that factors into a user-independent part (the geometric mechanism M*) followed by user-specific post-processing that can be delegated to the user itself. The first part of our proof of this result characterizes the optimal differentially private mechanism for a fixed but arbitrary user in terms of a certain basic feasible solution to a linear program with constraints that encode differential privacy. The second part shows that all of the relevant vertices of this polytope (ranging over all possible users) are derivable from the geometric mechanism via suitable remappings of its range.