Noninteractive Locally Private Learning of Linear Models via Polynomial Approximations

Minimizing a convex risk function is the main step in many basic learning algorithms. We study protocols for convex optimization which provably leak very little about the individual data points that constitute the loss function. Specifically, we consider differentially private algorithms that operate in the local model, where each data record is stored on a separate user device and randomization is performed locally by those devices. We give new protocols for \emph{noninteractive} LDP convex optimization---i.e., protocols that require only a single randomized report from each user to an untrusted aggregator. We study our algorithms' performance with respect to expected loss---either over the data set at hand (empirical risk) or a larger population from which our data set is assumed to be drawn. Our error bounds depend on the form of individuals' contribution to the expected loss. For the case of \emph{generalized linear losses} (such as hinge and logistic losses), we give an LDP algorithm whose sample complexity is only linear in the dimensionality $p$ and quasipolynomial in other terms (the privacy parameters $\epsilon$ and $\delta$, and the desired excess risk $\alpha$). This is the first algorithm for nonsmooth losses with sub-exponential dependence on $p$. For the Euclidean median problem, where the loss is given by the Euclidean distance to a given data point, we give a protocol whose sample complexity grows quasipolynomially in $p$. This is the first protocol with sub-exponential dependence on $p$ for a loss that is not a generalized linear loss . Our result for the hinge loss is based on a technique, dubbed polynomial of inner product approximation, which may be applicable to other problems. Our results for generalized linear losses and the Euclidean median are based on new reductions to the case of hinge loss.

[1]  Guy N. Rothblum,et al.  Boosting and Differential Privacy , 2010, 2010 IEEE 51st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[2]  Joseph P. Near,et al.  Differential Privacy at Scale: Uber and Berkeley Collaboration , 2018 .

[3]  Uri Stemmer,et al.  Heavy Hitters and the Structure of Local Privacy , 2019, ACM Trans. Algorithms.

[4]  Ashwin Machanavajjhala,et al.  Utility Cost of Formal Privacy for Releasing National Employer-Employee Statistics , 2017, SIGMOD Conference.

[5]  Raef Bassily,et al.  Differentially Private Empirical Risk Minimization: Efficient Algorithms and Tight Error Bounds , 2014, 1405.7085.

[6]  Di Wang,et al.  Differentially Private Empirical Risk Minimization Revisited: Faster and More General , 2018, NIPS.

[7]  Charles A. Micchelli,et al.  The saturation class and iterates of the Bernstein polynomials , 1973 .

[8]  Nathan Srebro,et al.  Graph Oracle Models, Lower Bounds, and Gaps for Parallel Stochastic Optimization , 2018, NeurIPS.

[9]  Benjamin I. P. Rubinstein,et al.  The Bernstein Mechanism: Function Release under Differential Privacy , 2017, AAAI.

[10]  Martin J. Wainwright,et al.  Local privacy and statistical minimax rates , 2013, 2013 51st Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton).

[11]  Hongxia Jin,et al.  Efficient Private Empirical Risk Minimization for High-dimensional Learning , 2016, ICML.

[12]  Úlfar Erlingsson,et al.  RAPPOR: Randomized Aggregatable Privacy-Preserving Ordinal Response , 2014, CCS.

[13]  Jakub W. Pachocki,et al.  Geometric median in nearly linear time , 2016, STOC.

[14]  Daniel Kifer,et al.  Private Convex Empirical Risk Minimization and High-dimensional Regression , 2012, COLT 2012.

[15]  Uri Stemmer,et al.  Heavy Hitters and the Structure of Local Privacy , 2017, PODS.

[16]  Sofya Raskhodnikova,et al.  What Can We Learn Privately? , 2008, 2008 49th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[17]  Arkadi Nemirovski,et al.  On Parallel Complexity of Nonsmooth Convex Optimization , 1994, J. Complex..

[18]  Di Wang,et al.  Differentially Private Empirical Risk Minimization with Smooth Non-Convex Loss Functions: A Non-Stationary View , 2019, AAAI.

[19]  M. A. Qazi,et al.  Some Coefficient Estimates for Polynomials on the Unit Interval , 2007 .

[20]  Alexandre V. Evfimievski,et al.  Limiting privacy breaches in privacy preserving data mining , 2003, PODS.

[21]  Cynthia Dwork,et al.  Calibrating Noise to Sensitivity in Private Data Analysis , 2006, TCC.

[22]  Li Zhang,et al.  Nearly Optimal Private LASSO , 2015, NIPS.

[23]  Anand D. Sarwate,et al.  Differentially Private Empirical Risk Minimization , 2009, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[24]  Liwei Wang,et al.  Collect at Once, Use Effectively: Making Non-interactive Locally Private Learning Possible , 2017, ICML.

[25]  Alexander Gasnikov,et al.  Stochastic Intermediate Gradient Method for Convex Problems with Stochastic Inexact Oracle , 2016, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications.

[26]  Kamalika Chaudhuri,et al.  Privacy-preserving logistic regression , 2008, NIPS.

[27]  Jun Tang,et al.  Privacy Loss in Apple's Implementation of Differential Privacy on MacOS 10.12 , 2017, ArXiv.

[28]  Olvi L. Mangasarian,et al.  A class of smoothing functions for nonlinear and mixed complementarity problems , 1996, Comput. Optim. Appl..

[29]  Eran Omri,et al.  Distributed Private Data Analysis: On Simultaneously Solving How and What , 2008, CRYPTO.

[30]  Di Wang,et al.  Empirical Risk Minimization in Non-interactive Local Differential Privacy Revisited , 2018, NeurIPS.

[31]  Adam D. Smith,et al.  Is Interaction Necessary for Distributed Private Learning? , 2017, 2017 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP).