Cited by 2,400Privacy-Preserving Technologies in DataStochastic Gradient Optimization TechniquesCloud Data Security Solutions

Federated Learning With Differential Privacy: Algorithms and Performance Analysis

Open access
Wei, Kang, Li, Jun, Ding, Ming, Ma, Chuan, Yang, Howard H., Farokhi, Farhad, Jin, Shi, Quek, Tony Q. S. +1 more·2020·IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security

Abstract

Federated learning (FL), as a type of distributed machine learning, is capable of significantly preserving clients’ private data from being exposed to adversaries. Nevertheless, private information can still be divulged by analyzing uploaded parameters from clients, e.g., weights trained in deep neural networks. In this paper, to effectively prevent information leakage, we propose a novel framework based on the concept of differential privacy (DP), in which artificial noise is added to parameters at the clients’ side before aggregating, namely, noising before model aggregation FL (NbAFL). First, we prove that the NbAFL can satisfy DP under distinct protection levels by properly adapting different variances of artificial noise. Then we develop a theoretical convergence bound on the loss function of the trained FL model in the NbAFL. Specifically, the theoretical bound reveals the following three key properties: 1) there is a tradeoff between convergence performance and privacy protection levels, i.e., better convergence performance leads to a lower protection level; 2) given a fixed privacy protection level, increasing the number$N$of overall clients participating in FL can improve the convergence performance; and 3) there is an optimal number aggregation times (communication rounds) in terms of convergence performance for a given protection level. Furthermore, we propose a$K$-client random scheduling strategy, where$K$($1\leq K< N$) clients are randomly selected from the$N$overall clients to participate in each aggregation. We also develop a corresponding convergence bound for the loss function in this case and the$K$-client random scheduling strategy also retains the above three properties. Moreover, we find that there is an optimal$K$that achieves the best convergence performance at a fixed privacy level. Evaluations demonstrate that our theoretical results are consistent with simulations, thereby facilitating the design of various privacy-preserving FL algorithms with different tradeoff requirements on convergence performance and privacy levels.

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/tifs.2020.2988575

Cites

43 of 43 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?

  • Differentially private training algorithms mitigate information leakage from both collaborator model updates and global consensus aggregated models.

    “Differentially private training algorithms62–64 allow for mitigation of information leakage from both the collaborator model updates and the global consensus aggregated models.”
  • In federated learning, differential privacy is utilized by adding noise to the parameters exchanged by participants before model aggregation at the server side.

    “When it comes to FL, to prevent information leakage the concept of DPis utilized by adding noise to the parameters that are exchanged by the participants before model aggregation at the server side [25].”
  • Differential privacy-based FL methods using perceptron, SVM, and logistic regression achieve competitive accuracy compared to traditional FL schemes.

    “Three ML models are employed, including perceptron, support vector machine (SVM), and logistic regression, to perform FL training, showing that a competitive accuracy performance is achieved by using differential privacy-based FL methods compared to traditional FL schemes.”

    From Federated learning for smart healthcare: A survey (2023) · cites this paper as [82]

  • Differential privacy can protect training datasets against data breach.

    “This can be done by using perturbation techniques [25] such as differential privacy can be used to protect training datasets against data breach, by constructing composition theorems with complex mathematical solutions.”
  • Differential privacy techniques degrade model performance or require additional conditions that are not suitable for IoT networks, especially high computing power.

    “Although some techniques have been used to overcome this problem, including differential privacy [166], these approaches degrade model performance or require additional conditions that are not suitable for IoT networks, especially high computing power [167].”

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: 1

  1. Wei, K., Li, J., Ding, M., Ma, C., Yang, H. H., Farokhi, F., Jin, S., Quek, T. Q. S. & Poor, H. V. (2020). Federated Learning with Differential Privacy: Algorithms and Performance Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 15, pp.3454-3469. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIFS.2020.2988575. Persistent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/251362 File Description: Accepted version

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wei, K., Li, J., Ding, M., Ma, C., Yang, H. H., Farokhi, F., Jin, S., Quek, T. Q. S., & Vincent Poor, H.
Affiliations
  • Nanjing University of Science and Technology (CN)
  • Tomsk Polytechnic University (RU)
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
  • Singapore University of Technology and Design (SG)
  • Southeast University (CN)
  • Department of Electrical Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security
Published
2020
Volume
15
Pages
3454-3469
ISSN
  • 1556-6013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-6021
OpenAlex
W3016632787
Cited by
2,400
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 382 · 2025: 555 · 2024: 577 · 2023: 399 · 2022: 284 · 2021: 162 · 2020: 41
FWCI
87.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018YFB1004800)
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (61872184, 61727802)
  • SUTD Growth Plan Grant for AI
  • U.S. National Science Foundation (CCF-1908308)
  • Princeton Center for Statistics and Machine Learning under a Data X Grant
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Stochastic Gradient Optimization Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cloud Data Security Solutions
Keywords
federated learning, differential privacy, artificial noise, convergence bounds, privacy-utility trade-off, communication rounds, deep neural network training, information leakage

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