The problem of privacy-preserving data analysis has a long history spanning multiple disciplines. As electronic data about individuals becomes increasingly detailed, and as technology enables ever more powerful collection and curation of these data, the need increases for a robust, meaningful, and mathematically rigorous definition of privacy, together with a computationally rich class of algorithms that satisfy this definition. Differential Privacy is such a definition.After motivating and discussing the meaning of differential privacy, the preponderance of this monograph is devoted to fundamental techniques for achieving differential privacy, and application of these techniques in creative combinations, using the query-release problem as an ongoing example. A key point is that, by rethinking the computational goal, one can often obtain far better results than would be achieved by methodically replacing each step of a non-private computation with a differentially private implementation. Despite some astonishingly powerful computational results, there are still fundamental limitations — not just on what can be achieved with differential privacy but on what can be achieved with any method that protects against a complete breakdown in privacy. Virtually all the algorithms discussed herein maintain differential privacy against adversaries of arbitrary computational power. Certain algorithms are computationally intensive, others are efficient. Computational complexity for the adversary and the algorithm are both discussed.We then turn from fundamentals to applications other than queryrelease, discussing differentially private methods for mechanism design and machine learning. The vast majority of the literature on differentially private algorithms considers a single, static, database that is subject to many analyses. Differential privacy in other models, including distributed databases and computations on data streams is discussed.Finally, we note that this work is meant as a thorough introduction to the problems and techniques of differential privacy, but is not intended to be an exhaustive survey — there is by now a vast amount of work in differential privacy, and we can cover only a small portion of it.

/pdf/the-algorithmic-foundations-of-differential-privacy-1n8bb9a7eo.pdf

The Algorithmic Foundations of Differential Privacy

Machine learning techniques based on neural networks are achieving remarkable results in a wide variety of domains. Often, the training of models requires large, representative datasets, which may be crowdsourced and contain sensitive information. The models should not expose private information in these datasets. Addressing this goal, we develop new algorithmic techniques for learning and a refined analysis of privacy costs within the framework of differential privacy. Our implementation and experiments demonstrate that we can train deep neural networks with non-convex objectives, under a modest privacy budget, and at a manageable cost in software complexity, training efficiency, and model quality.

Deep Learning with Differential Privacy

Semi-supervised learning has proven to be a powerful paradigm for leveraging unlabeled data to mitigate the reliance on large labeled datasets. In this work, we unify the current dominant approaches for semi-supervised learning to produce a new algorithm, MixMatch, that works by guessing low-entropy labels for data-augmented unlabeled examples and mixing labeled and unlabeled data using MixUp. We show that MixMatch obtains state-of-the-art results by a large margin across many datasets and labeled data amounts. For example, on CIFAR-10 with 250 labels, we reduce error rate by a factor of 4 (from 38% to 11%) and by a factor of 2 on STL-10. We also demonstrate how MixMatch can help achieve a dramatically better accuracy-privacy trade-off for differential privacy. Finally, we perform an ablation study to tease apart which components of MixMatch are most important for its success.

MixMatch: A Holistic Approach to Semi-Supervised Learning

Federated learning (FL) is a machine learning setting where many clients (e.g. mobile devices or whole organizations) collaboratively train a model under the orchestration of a central server (e.g. service provider), while keeping the training data decentralized. FL embodies the principles of focused data collection and minimization, and can mitigate many of the systemic privacy risks and costs resulting from traditional, centralized machine learning and data science approaches. Motivated by the explosive growth in FL research, this paper discusses recent advances and presents an extensive collection of open problems and challenges.

Advances and Open Problems in Federated Learning

Adaptivity is an important feature of data analysis - the choice of questions to ask about a dataset often depends on previous interactions with the same dataset. However, statistical validity is typically studied in a nonadaptive model, where all questions are specified before the dataset is drawn. Recent work by Dwork et al. (STOC, 2015) and Hardt and Ullman (FOCS, 2014) initiated a general formal study of this problem, and gave the first upper and lower bounds on the achievable generalization error for adaptive data analysis. Specifically, suppose there is an unknown distribution P and a set of n independent samples x is drawn from P. We seek an algorithm that, given x as input, accurately answers a sequence of adaptively chosen ``queries'' about the unknown distribution P. How many samples n must we draw from the distribution, as a function of the type of queries, the number of queries, and the desired level of accuracy? In this work we make two new contributions towards resolving this question: We give upper bounds on the number of samples n that are needed to answer statistical queries. The bounds improve and simplify the work of Dwork et al. (STOC, 2015), and have been applied in subsequent work by those authors (Science, 2015; NIPS, 2015). We prove the first upper bounds on the number of samples required to answer more general families of queries. These include arbitrary low-sensitivity queries and an important class of optimization queries (alternatively, risk minimization queries). As in Dwork et al., our algorithms are based on a connection with algorithmic stability in the form of differential privacy. We extend their work by giving a quantitatively optimal, more general, and simpler proof of their main theorem that the stability notion guaranteed by differential privacy implies low generalization error. We also show that weaker stability guarantees such as bounded KL divergence and total variation distance lead to correspondingly weaker generalization guarantees.

https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2897518.2897566

Algorithmic stability for adaptive data analysis

We present new practical local differentially private heavy hitters algorithms achieving optimal or near-optimal worst-case error and running time -- TreeHist and Bitstogram. In both algorithms, server running time is $\tilde O(n)$ and user running time is $\tilde O(1)$, hence improving on the prior state-of-the-art result of Bassily and Smith [STOC 2015] requiring $O(n^{5/2})$ server time and $O(n^{3/2})$ user time. With a typically large number of participants in local algorithms ($n$ in the millions), this reduction in time complexity, in particular at the user side, is crucial for making locally private heavy hitters algorithms usable in practice. We implemented Algorithm TreeHist to verify our theoretical analysis and compared its performance with the performance of Google's RAPPOR code.

/pdf/practical-locally-private-heavy-hitters-1gocgqkeke.pdf

Practical Locally Private Heavy Hitters

We prove new upper and lower bounds on the sample complexity of (a#x03B5;, a#x03B4;) differentially private algorithms for releasing approximate answers to threshold functions. A threshold function cx over a totally ordered domain X evaluates to cx(y) = 1 if y a#x2264; x, and evaluates to 0 otherwise. We give the first nontrivial lower bound for releasing thresholds with (a#x03B5;, a#x03B4;) differential privacy, showing that the task is impossible over an infinite domain X, and moreover requires sample complexity n a#x2265; (log* |X|), which grows with the size of the domain. Inspired by the techniques used to prove this lower bound, we give an algorithm for releasing thresholds with n a#x2264; 2(1+o(1)) log* |X| samples. This improves the previous best upper bound of 8(1+o(1)) log* |X| (Beimel et al., RANDOM'13). Our sample complexity upper and lower bounds also apply to the tasks of learning distributions with respect to Kolmogorov distance and of properly PAC learning thresholds with differential privacy. The lower bound gives the first separation between the sample complexity of properly learning a concept class with (a#x03B5;, a#x03B4;) differential privacy and learning without privacy. For properly learning thresholds in 'dimensions, this lower bound extends to n a#x2265; (l a#x2219; log* |X|). To obtain our results, we give reductions in both directions from releasing and properly learning thresholds and the simpler interior point problem. Given a database D of elements from X, the interior point problem asks for an element between the smallest and largest elements in D. We introduce new recursive constructions for bounding the sample complexity of the interior point problem, as well as further reductions and techniques for proving impossibility results for other basic problems in differential privacy.

Differentially Private Release and Learning of Threshold Functions

Adaptivity is an important feature of data analysis---the choice of questions to ask about a dataset often depends on previous interactions with the same dataset. However, statistical validity is typically studied in a nonadaptive model, where all questions are specified before the dataset is drawn. Recent work by Dwork et al. (STOC, 2015) and Hardt and Ullman (FOCS, 2014) initiated the formal study of this problem, and gave the first upper and lower bounds on the achievable generalization error for adaptive data analysis. 
Specifically, suppose there is an unknown distribution $\mathbf{P}$ and a set of $n$ independent samples $\mathbf{x}$ is drawn from $\mathbf{P}$. We seek an algorithm that, given $\mathbf{x}$ as input, accurately answers a sequence of adaptively chosen queries about the unknown distribution $\mathbf{P}$. How many samples $n$ must we draw from the distribution, as a function of the type of queries, the number of queries, and the desired level of accuracy? 
In this work we make two new contributions: 
(i) We give upper bounds on the number of samples $n$ that are needed to answer statistical queries. The bounds improve and simplify the work of Dwork et al. (STOC, 2015), and have been applied in subsequent work by those authors (Science, 2015, NIPS, 2015). 
(ii) We prove the first upper bounds on the number of samples required to answer more general families of queries. These include arbitrary low-sensitivity queries and an important class of optimization queries. 
As in Dwork et al., our algorithms are based on a connection with algorithmic stability in the form of differential privacy. We extend their work by giving a quantitatively optimal, more general, and simpler proof of their main theorem that stability implies low generalization error. We also study weaker stability guarantees such as bounded KL divergence and total variation distance.

Algorithmic Stability for Adaptive Data Analysis

We compare the sample complexity of private learning and sanitization tasks under pure e-differential privacy [Dwork, McSherry, Nissim, and Smith TCC 2006] and approximate (e,δ)-differential privacy [Dwork, Kenthapadi, McSherry, Mironov, and Naor 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.

/pdf/private-learning-and-sanitization-pure-vs-approximate-mzpddezftt.pdf

Uri Stemmer

Papers

Algorithmic stability for adaptive data analysis

Practical Locally Private Heavy Hitters

Differentially Private Release and Learning of Threshold Functions

Algorithmic Stability for Adaptive Data Analysis

Private Learning and Sanitization: Pure vs. Approximate Differential Privacy