Cited by 108Privacy-Preserving Technologies in DataCryptography and Data SecurityCloud Data Security Solutions

InPrivate Digging: Enabling Tree-based Distributed Data Mining with Differential Privacy

Zhao, Lingchen, Ni, Lihao, Hu, Shengshan, Chen, Yaniiao, Zhou, Pan, Xiao, Fu, Wu, Libing·2018·IEEE INFOCOM 2018 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications

Abstract

Data mining has heralded the major breakthrough in data analysis, serving as a “super cruncher” to discover hidden information and valuable knowledge in big data systems. For many applications, the collection of big data usually involves various parties who are interested in pooling their private data sets together to jointly train machine-learning models that yield more accurate prediction results. However, data owners may not be willing to disclose their own data due to privacy concerns, making it imperative to provide privacy guarantee in collaborative data mining over distributed data sets. In this paper, we focus on tree-based data mining. To begin with, we design novel privacy-preserving schemes for two most common tasks: regression and binary classification, where individual data owners can perform training locally in a differentially private manner. Then, for the first time, we design and implement a privacy-preserving system for gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT), where different regression trees trained by multiple data owners can be securely aggregated into an ensemble. We conduct extensive experiments to evaluate the performance of our system on multiple real-world data sets. The results demonstrate that our system can provide a strong privacy protection for individual data owners while maintaining the prediction accuracy of the original trained model.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/infocom.2018.8486352

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Hitaj et al. apply GAN attack which allows the adversarial party in the training process of FL to fabricate inferring class representative.

    “Hitaj et al. [155] apply GAN attack which allows the adversarial party in the training process of FL to fabricate inferring class representative.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhao, L., Ni, L., Hu, S., Chen, Y., Zhou, P., Xiao, F., & Wu, L.
Affiliations
  • Wuhan University (CN)
  • City University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Huazhong University of Science and Technology (CN)
  • Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications (CN)
Venue
IEEE INFOCOM 2018 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2018-04
Pages
2087-2095
OpenAlex
W2793685318
Cited by
108
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1
FWCI
4.08
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cryptography and Data Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cloud Data Security Solutions
Keywords
differential privacy, distributed data mining, gradient boosting decision tree, binary classification, ensemble learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review