Gradients Look Alike: Sensitivity is Often Overestimated in DP-SGD

Overview

• The paper focuses on understanding the privacy guarantees of Differentially Private Stochastic Gradient Descent (DP-SGD), a common approach for private deep learning.
• Despite DP-SGD's theoretical privacy guarantees, empirical results suggest that models trained on common benchmark datasets often leak significantly less private information than expected for many data points.
• The paper aims to provide a rigorous, per-instance (data-dependent) privacy analysis of DP-SGD to explain this phenomenon.

Plain English Explanation

Differentially Private Stochastic Gradient Descent (DP-SGD) is a popular technique used to train machine learning models in a privacy-preserving way. The idea is to add carefully calibrated noise to the model updates during training, in order to protect the privacy of the individual data points used for training.

While the current theoretical privacy analysis of DP-SGD is known to be tight in some settings, many empirical studies have found that models trained on common benchmark datasets actually leak significantly less private information than this theoretical analysis would suggest, for a large number of data points. Past attempts to explain this discrepancy have not been successful.

The key insight in this paper is that data points with similar "neighbors" (other data points that are close to them) in the training dataset tend to enjoy better privacy protection than outlier data points. The paper develops a new, per-instance (data-dependent) privacy analysis of DP-SGD that captures this intuition. This analysis shows that DP-SGD can provide much tighter privacy guarantees for many data points, compared to the current data-independent guarantees.

In simple terms, the paper demonstrates that DP-SGD is often "too good to be true" - it provides better privacy protection than the theoretical bounds suggest, at least for many data points in common benchmark datasets. This means that privacy attacks are less likely to succeed against these data points, as the adversary would need a lot of control over the possible training datasets to breach the privacy.

Technical Explanation

The key technical contributions of the paper are:

1. Data-dependent Privacy Analysis: The paper develops a new per-instance (data-dependent) privacy analysis of DP-SGD. This analysis captures the intuition that data points with similar neighbors in the dataset enjoy better privacy protection than outliers. Formally, this is done by modifying the per-step privacy analysis of DP-SGD to introduce a dependence on the distribution of model updates computed from the training dataset.

2. Composition Theorem: The paper also develops a new composition theorem that allows the data-dependent per-step analysis to be effectively used to reason about the privacy guarantee of an entire training run of DP-SGD.

3. Empirical Evaluation: The paper's evaluation shows that this novel DP-SGD analysis can formally demonstrate that DP-SGD leaks significantly less privacy for many data points (when trained on common benchmarks) compared to the current data-independent guarantee. This implies that privacy attacks are more likely to fail against these data points, as the adversary would need substantial control over the possible training datasets.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a promising explanation for the empirically observed privacy "overprotection" of DP-SGD on common benchmark datasets. By introducing a data-dependent privacy analysis, the authors are able to formally capture the intuition that data points with similar neighbors enjoy better privacy protection.

However, the paper also acknowledges some important limitations and caveats:

1. The data-dependent analysis still relies on certain assumptions, such as the distribution of model updates being concentrated around the mean. The extent to which these assumptions hold in practice remains to be further investigated.

2. The paper's analysis is focused on the privacy of individual data points. Understanding the privacy implications for the dataset as a whole, or for specific subgroups, is an important area for future research.

3. The paper does not explore the potential trade-offs between the data-dependent privacy guarantees and other desirable properties of the trained model, such as its accuracy or generalization performance. These trade-offs could be an interesting direction for further study.

4. While the paper's results are promising, it would be valuable to see the analysis and insights validated on a wider range of benchmark datasets and machine learning tasks beyond the ones considered in this work.

Overall, this paper represents an important step towards a more nuanced understanding of the privacy guarantees provided by DP-SGD. By introducing a data-dependent perspective, it challenges the traditional, data-independent view and opens up new avenues for improving the privacy-preserving properties of deep learning models.

Conclusion

This paper provides the first rigorous, per-instance (data-dependent) privacy analysis of Differentially Private Stochastic Gradient Descent (DP-SGD), a widely used approach for private deep learning. The key insight is that data points with similar neighbors in the training dataset tend to enjoy better privacy protection than outliers.

The paper's analysis formally captures this intuition and demonstrates that DP-SGD can provide significantly tighter privacy guarantees for many data points, compared to the current data-independent guarantees. This implies that privacy attacks are less likely to succeed against these data points, as the adversary would need extensive control over the possible training datasets.

The findings in this paper challenge the traditional view of DP-SGD's privacy guarantees and open up new opportunities for improving the privacy-preserving properties of deep learning models. Further research is needed to fully understand the practical implications and potential trade-offs of this data-dependent perspective on DP-SGD.