Cited by 193Cryptography and Data SecurityPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataCloud Data Security Solutions

Privacy-preserving distributed linear regression on high-dimensional data

Open access
Gascón, Adrià, Schoppmann, Phillipp, Balle, Borja, Raykova, Mariana, Doerner, Jack, Zahur, Samee, Evans, David·2017·Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies

Abstract

Abstract We propose privacy-preserving protocols for computing linear regression models, in the setting where the training dataset is vertically distributed among several parties. Our main contribution is a hybrid multi-party computation protocol that combines Yao’s garbled circuits with tailored protocols for computing inner products. Like many machine learning tasks, building a linear regression model involves solving a system of linear equations. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation and comparison of different techniques for securely performing this task, including a new Conjugate Gradient Descent (CGD) algorithm. This algorithm is suitable for secure computation because it uses an efficient fixed-point representation of real numbers while maintaining accuracy and convergence rates comparable to what can be obtained with a classical solution using floating point numbers. Our technique improves on Nikolaenko et al.’s method for privacy-preserving ridge regression (S&P 2013), and can be used as a building block in other analyses. We implement a complete system and demonstrate that our approach is highly scalable, solving data analysis problems with one million records and one hundred features in less than one hour of total running time.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/popets-2017-0053

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Vertical FL is more challenging than horizontal FL due to entity resolution.

    “By contrast with horizontal FL, it is a more challenging work due to entity resolution(Gascón et al., 2017).”

    From A review of applications in federated learning (2020) · cites this paper as Gascón et al., 2017

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 72 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gascón, A., Schoppmann, P., Balle, B., Raykova, M., Doerner, J., Zahur, S., & Evans, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
  • Amazon (United States) (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • Northeastern University (US)
  • Google (United States) (US)
  • University of Virginia (US)
Venue
Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies
Published
2017-10-01
Volume
2017
Issue
4
Pages
345-364
ISSN
2299-0984 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2766831133
Cited by
193
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 12
FWCI
11.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/J017728/2)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cryptography and Data Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cloud Data Security Solutions
Keywords
privacy-preserving machine learning, vertical partitioning, multi-party computation, garbled circuits, fixed-point arithmetic, high-dimensional data

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