The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Heavy Hitter Estimation over Set-Valued Data with Local Differential Privacy
Abstract
In local differential privacy (LDP), each user perturbs her data locally before sending the noisy data to a data collector. The latter then analyzes the data to obtain useful statistics. Unlike the setting of centralized differential privacy, in LDP the data collector never gains access to the exact values of sensitive data, which protects not only the privacy of data contributors but also the collector itself against the risk of potential data leakage. Existing LDP solutions in the literature are mostly limited to the case that each user possesses a tuple of numeric or categorical values, and the data collector computes basic statistics such as counts or mean values. To the best of our knowledge, no existing work tackles more complex data mining tasks such as heavy hitter discovery over set-valued data. In this paper, we present a systematic study of heavy hitter mining under LDP. We first review existing solutions, extend them to the heavy hitter estimation, and explain why their effectiveness is limited. We then propose LDPMiner, a two-phase mechanism for obtaining accurate heavy hitters with LDP. The main idea is to first gather a candidate set of heavy hitters using a portion of the privacy budget, and focus the remaining budget on refining the candidate set in a second phase, which is much more efficient budget-wise than obtaining the heavy hitters directly from the whole dataset. We provide both in-depth theoretical analysis and extensive experiments to compare LDPMiner against adaptations of previous solutions. The results show that LDPMiner significantly improves over existing methods. More importantly, LDPMiner successfully identifies the majority true heavy hitters in practical settings.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Differential Privacy: A Survey of Results
Dwork, C. (2008) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-79228-4_1 · Cited by 3,542
Learning to rank using gradient descent
Burges, C., Shaked, T., Renshaw, E., Lazier, A., Deeds, M., Hamilton, N., & Hullender, G. (2005) · Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Machine learning - ICML '05 · doi:10.1145/1102351.1102363 · Cited by 2,836
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
Cited by
A Survey on the Edge Computing for the Internet of Things
Yu, W., Liang, F., He, X., Hatcher, W. G., Lu, C., Lin, J., & Yang, X. (2018) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2017.2778504 · Cited by 1,520
Securing Fog Computing for Internet of Things Applications: Challenges and Solutions
Ni, J., Zhang, K., Lin, X., & Shen, X. (2018) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2017.2762345 · Cited by 659
Amplification by Shuffling: From Local to Central Differential Privacy via Anonymity
Erlingsson, Ú., Feldman, V., Mironov, I., Raghunathan, A., Talwar, K., & Thakurta, A. (2019) · Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms · doi:10.1137/1.9781611975482.151 · Cited by 264
A Trustworthy Privacy Preserving Framework for Machine Learning in Industrial IoT Systems
Arachchige, P. C. M., Bertok, P., Khalil, I., Liu, D., Camtepe, S., & Atiquzzaman, M. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics · doi:10.1109/tii.2020.2974555 · Cited by 236
Self-citationA survey of local differential privacy for securing internet of vehicles
Zhao, P., Zhang, G., Wan, S., Liu, G., & Umer, T. (2020) · The Journal of Supercomputing · doi:10.1007/s11227-019-03104-0 · Cited by 66
Privacy-preserving aggregation of personal health data streams
Kim, J. W., Jang, B., & Yoo, H. (2018) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0207639 · Cited by 49
Neera, J., Chen, X., Aslam, N., Wang, K., & Shu, Z. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2021.3126577 · Cited by 42
Secure Federated Submodel Learning
Niu, C., Wu, F., Tang, S., Hua, L., Jia, R., Lv, C., Wu, Z., & Chen, G. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1911.02254 · Cited by 28
Differential Privacy Defenses and Sampling Attacks for Membership Inference
Rahimian, S., Orekondy, T., & Fritz, M. (2021) · Proceedings of the 14th ACM Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Security · doi:10.1145/3474369.3486876 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Qin, Z., Yang, Y., Yu, T., Khalil, I., Xiao, X., & Ren, K.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2016-10-24
- Pages
- 192-203
- OpenAlex
- W2532967691
- Cited by
- 324
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 18.88
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.