It's Our Loss: No Privacy Amplification for Hidden State DP-SGD With Non-Convex Loss
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper investigates the privacy amplification properties of differentially private stochastic gradient descent (DP-SGD) with non-convex loss functions and hidden state.
- The authors show that there is no privacy amplification for DP-SGD with non-convex loss, which contrasts with previous results for convex loss functions.
- The paper also provides tighter privacy analysis for DP-SGD with hidden state, improving on existing methods.
Plain English Explanation
In the field of machine learning, researchers often use a technique called Differential Privacy Stochastic Gradient Descent (DP-SGD) to train models while preserving the privacy of the data used for training. DP-SGD adds noise to the gradients during the optimization process, which helps prevent the model from revealing sensitive information about the training data.
This paper examines the privacy properties of DP-SGD when the loss function being optimized is non-convex, meaning it has multiple local minima rather than a single global minimum. The authors show that, unlike in the case of convex loss functions, there is no privacy amplification for DP-SGD with non-convex loss. This means that the privacy guarantee provided by DP-SGD does not improve as the number of training iterations increases, as it does for convex loss functions.
The paper also provides a tighter privacy analysis for DP-SGD when the model has hidden state, such as in recurrent neural networks. This improves on previous methods, which were less precise in their privacy guarantees.
Technical Explanation
The authors analyze the privacy amplification properties of DP-SGD with non-convex loss functions. Previous work had shown that for convex loss functions, the privacy guarantee of DP-SGD improves as the number of training iterations increases, a phenomenon known as privacy amplification. However, the authors demonstrate that this privacy amplification does not hold for non-convex loss functions.
Specifically, the authors prove that for non-convex loss functions, the privacy guarantee of DP-SGD remains constant and does not improve with more training iterations. This is in contrast to the convex case, where the privacy guarantee becomes tighter over time.
The paper also provides a tighter privacy analysis for DP-SGD with hidden state, such as in recurrent neural networks. This improves on previous methods, which were less precise in their privacy guarantees for models with hidden state.
Critical Analysis
The main limitation of this research is that it applies only to non-convex loss functions, which are common in modern machine learning, but does not address the case of convex loss functions, where privacy amplification is known to occur.
Additionally, the paper does not explore the practical implications of the lack of privacy amplification for non-convex DP-SGD. It would be valuable to understand the impact on the real-world performance and privacy guarantees of machine learning models trained using this approach.
Further research could investigate whether there are any modifications to the DP-SGD algorithm or the training process that could restore the privacy amplification property for non-convex loss functions. Alternatively, researchers could explore alternative privacy-preserving training methods that may be more effective for non-convex optimization problems.
Conclusion
This paper makes an important contribution to the understanding of differential privacy in machine learning by showing that the privacy amplification properties of DP-SGD do not hold for non-convex loss functions. This suggests that the privacy guarantees for DP-SGD may be more limited in practical settings, where non-convex models are commonly used.
The tighter privacy analysis for DP-SGD with hidden state also represents a valuable technical advancement, which could aid in the development of more accurate privacy-preserving machine learning models. As the field of differential privacy continues to evolve, research like this will be crucial in guiding the design of effective privacy-preserving algorithms and systems.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
It's Our Loss: No Privacy Amplification for Hidden State DP-SGD With Non-Convex Loss
Meenatchi Sundaram Muthu Selva Annamalai
Differentially Private Stochastic Gradient Descent (DP-SGD) is a popular iterative algorithm used to train machine learning models while formally guaranteeing the privacy of users. However, the privacy analysis of DP-SGD makes the unrealistic assumption that all intermediate iterates (aka internal state) of the algorithm are released since, in practice, only the final trained model, i.e., the final iterate of the algorithm is released. In this hidden state setting, prior work has provided tighter analyses, albeit only when the loss function is constrained, e.g., strongly convex and smooth or linear. On the other hand, the privacy leakage observed empirically from hidden state DP-SGD, even when using non-convex loss functions, suggests that there is in fact a gap between the theoretical privacy analysis and the privacy guarantees achieved in practice. Therefore, it remains an open question whether hidden state privacy amplification for DP-SGD is possible for all (possibly non-convex) loss functions in general. In this work, we design a counter-example and show, both theoretically and empirically, that a hidden state privacy amplification result for DP-SGD for all loss functions in general is not possible. By carefully constructing a loss function for DP-SGD, we show that for specific loss functions, the final iterate of DP-SGD alone leaks as much information as the sequence of all iterates combined. Furthermore, we empirically verify this result by evaluating the privacy leakage from the final iterate of DP-SGD with our loss function and show that this exactly matches the theoretical upper bound guaranteed by DP. Therefore, we show that the current privacy analysis for DP-SGD is tight for general loss functions and conclude that no privacy amplification is possible for DP-SGD in general for all (possibly non-convex) loss functions.
Read more8/22/2024
📈
0
Tighter Privacy Auditing of DP-SGD in the Hidden State Threat Model
Tudor Cebere, Aur'elien Bellet, Nicolas Papernot
Machine learning models can be trained with formal privacy guarantees via differentially private optimizers such as DP-SGD. In this work, we study such privacy guarantees when the adversary only accesses the final model, i.e., intermediate model updates are not released. In the existing literature, this hidden state threat model exhibits a significant gap between the lower bound provided by empirical privacy auditing and the theoretical upper bound provided by privacy accounting. To challenge this gap, we propose to audit this threat model with adversaries that craft a gradient sequence to maximize the privacy loss of the final model without accessing intermediate models. We demonstrate experimentally how this approach consistently outperforms prior attempts at auditing the hidden state model. When the crafted gradient is inserted at every optimization step, our results imply that releasing only the final model does not amplify privacy, providing a novel negative result. On the other hand, when the crafted gradient is not inserted at every step, we show strong evidence that a privacy amplification phenomenon emerges in the general non-convex setting (albeit weaker than in convex regimes), suggesting that existing privacy upper bounds can be improved.
Read more5/24/2024
📶
0
Privacy of the last iterate in cyclically-sampled DP-SGD on nonconvex composite losses
Weiwei Kong, M'onica Ribero
Differentially private stochastic gradient descent (DP-SGD) refers to a family of optimization algorithms that provide a guaranteed level of differential privacy (DP) through DP accounting techniques. However, current accounting techniques make assumptions that diverge significantly from practical DP-SGD implementations. For example, they may assume the loss function is Lipschitz continuous and convex, sample the batches randomly with replacement, or omit the gradient clipping step. In this work, we analyze the most commonly used variant of DP-SGD, in which we sample batches cyclically with replacement, perform gradient clipping, and only release the last DP-SGD iterate. More specifically - without assuming convexity, smoothness, or Lipschitz continuity of the loss function - we establish new R'enyi differential privacy (RDP) bounds for the last DP-SGD iterate under the mild assumption that (i) the DP-SGD stepsize is small relative to the topological constants in the loss function, and (ii) the loss function is weakly-convex. Moreover, we show that our bounds converge to previously established convex bounds when the weak-convexity parameter of the objective function approaches zero. In the case of non-Lipschitz smooth loss functions, we provide a weaker bound that scales well in terms of the number of DP-SGD iterations.
Read more7/9/2024
🏅
0
Gradients Look Alike: Sensitivity is Often Overestimated in DP-SGD
Anvith Thudi, Hengrui Jia, Casey Meehan, Ilia Shumailov, Nicolas Papernot
Differentially private stochastic gradient descent (DP-SGD) is the canonical approach to private deep learning. While the current privacy analysis of DP-SGD is known to be tight in some settings, several empirical results suggest that models trained on common benchmark datasets leak significantly less privacy for many datapoints. Yet, despite past attempts, a rigorous explanation for why this is the case has not been reached. Is it because there exist tighter privacy upper bounds when restricted to these dataset settings, or are our attacks not strong enough for certain datapoints? In this paper, we provide the first per-instance (i.e., ``data-dependent) DP analysis of DP-SGD. Our analysis captures the intuition that points with similar neighbors in the dataset enjoy better data-dependent privacy 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 a training dataset. We further develop a new composition theorem to effectively use this new per-step analysis to reason about an entire training run. Put all together, our evaluation shows that this novel DP-SGD analysis allows us to now formally show that DP-SGD leaks significantly less privacy for many datapoints (when trained on common benchmarks) than the current data-independent guarantee. This implies privacy attacks will necessarily fail against many datapoints if the adversary does not have sufficient control over the possible training datasets.
Read more7/17/2024