Cited by 31Privacy-Preserving Technologies in DataBlockchain Technology Applications and SecurityEthics and Social Impacts of AI

How to Democratise and Protect AI: Fair and Differentially Private Decentralised Deep Learning

Open access
Lyu, Lingjuan, Li, Yitong, Nandakumar, Karthik, Yu, Jiangshan, Ma, Xingjun·2020·IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing

Abstract

This article first considers the research problem of fairness in collaborative deep learning, while ensuring privacy. A novel reputation system is proposed through digital tokens and local credibility to ensure fairness, in combination with differential privacy to guarantee privacy. In particular, we build a fair and differentially private decentralised deep learning framework called FDPDDL, which enables parties to derive more accurate local models in a fair and private manner by using our developed two-stage scheme: during the initialisation stage, artificial samples generated by Differentially Private Generative Adversarial Network (DPGAN) are used to mutually benchmark the local credibility of each party and generate initial tokens; during the update stage, Differentially Private SGD (DPSGD) is used to facilitate collaborative privacy-preserving deep learning, and local credibility and tokens of each party are updated according to the quality and quantity of individually released gradients. Experimental results on benchmark datasets under three realistic settings demonstrate that FDPDDL achieves high fairness, yields comparable accuracy to the centralised and distributed frameworks, and delivers better accuracy than the standalone framework.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tdsc.2020.3006287

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • In FL systems, there may exist free-riders who aim to benefit from the global model but do not want to contribute any useful information, thus compromising collaborative fairness.

    “In FL systems, there may exist free-riders, who aim to benefit from the global model, but do not want to contribute any useful information, thus compromising collaborative fairness [167], [168], [184].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. [16][16] L. Lyu, X. He, Y. W. Law, and M. Palaniswami, 'Privacy-preserving collaborative deep learning with application to human activity recognition,' in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management . ACM, 2017, pp. 1219-1228. -
  2. [20][20] G. Wood, 'Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger,' Ethereum Project Yellow Paper , vol. 151, pp. 1-32, 2014. -
  3. [30][30] T. Zhang and Q. Zhu, 'Dynamic differential privacy for admmbased distributed classification learning,' IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security , vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 172-187, 2016. -
  4. [32][32] H. Kim, S.-H. Kim, J. Y. Hwang, and C. Seo, 'Efficient privacypreserving machine learning for blockchain network,' IEEE Access , vol. 7, pp. 136 481-136 495, 2019. -
  5. [33][33] L. Lyu, J. C. Bezdek, X. He, and J. Jin, 'Fog-embedded deep learning for the internet of things,' IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics , vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 4206-4215, 2019. -
  6. [35][35] W. Zhang, S. Gupta, X. Lian, and J. Liu, 'Staleness-aware async-sgd for distributed deep learning,' in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2016, pp. 23502356. -
  7. [38][38] L. Lyu, J. Yu, K. Nandakumar, Y. Li, X. Ma, J. Jin, H. Yu, and K. S. Ng, 'Towards fair and privacy-preserving federated deep models,' IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems , vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 2524-2541, 2020. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lyu, L., Li, Y., Nandakumar, K., Yu, J., & Ma, X.
Affiliations
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • IBM (United States) (US)
  • Monash University (AU)
  • Deakin University (AU)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing
Published
2020
Pages
1-1
ISSN
  • 1545-5971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-0018
  • 2160-9209
OpenAlex
W3039812354
Cited by
31
References
34
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2
FWCI
1.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Faculty of Information Technology Monash University (Academic funding)
  • IBM (IBM PhD Fellowship)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
federated deep learning, differential privacy, fairness, reputation systems, digital tokens, collaborative deep learning, privacy-preserving machine 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