The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Amplification by Shuffling: From Local to Central Differential Privacy via Anonymity
Abstract
Sensitive statistics are often collected across sets of users, with repeated collection of reports done over time. For example, trends in users’ private preferences or software usage may be monitored via such reports. We study the collection of such statistics in the local differential privacy (LDP) model, and describe an algorithm whose privacy cost is polylogarithmic in the number of changes to a user's value. More fundamentally—by building on anonymity of the users’ reports—we also demonstrate how the privacy cost of our LDP algorithm can actually be much lower when viewed in the central model of differential privacy. We show, via a new and general privacy amplification technique, that any permutation-invariant algorithm satisfying ε-local differential privacy will satisfy -central differential privacy. By this, we explain how the high noise and overhead of LDP protocols is a consequence of them being significantly more private in the central model. As a practical corollary, our results imply that several LDP-based industrial deployments may have much lower privacy cost than their advertised ε would indicate—at least if reports are anonymized.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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 the citing paper
“Of course, these improved proof techniques often rely on additional (albeit realistic) assumptions, such as that random shuffling can be used to provide unlinkability [17] or that the intermediate model weights computed during training can be hidden from the adversary [18].”
From The Secret Sharer: Evaluating and Testing Unintended Memorization in Neural Networks (2018) · cites this paper as [17]
In the citing paper
“Also, without modifying the training approach, improved proof techniques have been able to improve guarantees by orders of magnitude, indicating that the analytic e is not a tight upper bound.”
From The Secret Sharer: Evaluating and Testing Unintended Memorization in Neural Networks (2018) · cites this paper as [17]
Citations
Cites
Calibrating Noise to Sensitivity in Private Data Analysis
Dwork, C., McSherry, F., Nissim, K., & Smith, A. (2006) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/11681878_14 · Cited by 7,272
Deep Learning with Differential Privacy
Abadi, M., Chu, A., Goodfellow, I., McMahan, H. B., Mironov, I., Talwar, K., & Zhang, L. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security · doi:10.1145/2976749.2978318 · Cited by 6,578
Self-citationDwork, C. (2006) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/11787006_1 · Cited by 5,291
Tor: The Second-Generation Onion Router
Dingledine, R., Mathewson, N., & Syverson, P. (2004) · doi:10.21236/ada465464 · Cited by 4,104
The Algorithmic Foundations of Differential Privacy
Dwork, C., & Roth, A. (2013) · doi:10.1561/9781601988195 · Cited by 3,856
Randomized Response: A Survey Technique for Eliminating Evasive Answer Bias
Warner, S. L. (1965) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1965.10480775 · Cited by 3,255
RAPPOR: Randomized Aggregatable Privacy-Preserving Ordinal Response
Erlingsson, Ú., Pihur, V., & Korolova, A. (2014) · Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security · doi:10.1145/2660267.2660348 · Cited by 1,838
Self-citationOur Data, Ourselves: Privacy Via Distributed Noise Generation
Dwork, C., Kenthapadi, K., McSherry, F., Mironov, I., & Naor, M. (2006) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/11761679_29 · Cited by 1,835
Self-citationMironov, I. (2017) · 2017 IEEE 30th Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF) · doi:10.1109/csf.2017.11 · Cited by 1,255
Self-citationBoosting and Differential Privacy
Dwork, C., Rothblum, G. N., & Vadhan, S. (2010) · 2010 IEEE 51st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science · doi:10.1109/focs.2010.12 · Cited by 784
Cited by
Advances and Open Problems in Federated Learning
Kairouz, P., & McMahan, H. B. (2021) · Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning · doi:10.1561/2200000083 · Cited by 7,772
The Secret Sharer: Evaluating and Testing Unintended Memorization in Neural Networks
Carlini, N., Liu, C., Erlingsson, Ú., Kos, J., & Song, D. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1802.08232 · Cited by 629
Self-citationDistributed Differential Privacy via Shuffling
Cheu, A., Smith, A., Ullman, J., Zeber, D., & Zhilyaev, M. (2019) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-17653-2_13 · Cited by 268
The Privacy Blanket of the Shuffle Model
Balle, B., Bell, J., Gascón, A., & Nissim, K. (2019) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-26951-7_22 · Cited by 214
How to DP-fy ML: A Practical Guide to Machine Learning with Differential Privacy
Ponomareva, N., Hazimeh, H., Kurakin, A., Xu, Z., Denison, C., McMahan, H. B., Vassilvitskii, S., Chien, S., & Thakurta, A. G. (2023) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.1.14649 · Cited by 166
Self-citationZhou, J., Chen, S., Wu, Y., Li, H., Zhang, B., Zhou, L., Hu, Y., Xiang, Z., Li, Z., Chen, N., et al. (2024) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adh8601 · Cited by 63
Privacy preserving and secure robust federated learning: A survey
Han, Q., Lu, S., Wang, W., Qu, H., Li, J., & Gao, Y. (2024) · Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience · doi:10.1002/cpe.8084 · Cited by 29
On the Power of Multiple Anonymous Messages
Ghazi, B., Golowich, N., Kumar, R., Pagh, R., & Velingker, A. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1908.11358 · Cited by 26
Novikova, E., Fomichov, D., Kholod, I., & Filippov, E. (2022) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s22082983 · Cited by 24
The power of the hybrid model for mean estimation
Avent, B., Dubey, Y., & Korolova, A. (2020) · Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies · doi:10.2478/popets-2020-0062 · Cited by 9
The distributed discrete gaussian mechanism for federated learning with secure aggregation
Kairouz, P., Liu, Z., & Steinke, T. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.06387 · Cited by 117
Metadata
- Authors
- Erlingsson, Ú., Feldman, V., Mironov, I., Raghunathan, A., Talwar, K., & Thakurta, A.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms
- Published
- 2019-01
- Pages
- 2468-2479
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 33
- Language
- en
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
