PreprintCited by 434Privacy-Preserving Technologies in DataCryptography and Data SecurityCloud Data Security Solutions

Private federated learning on vertically partitioned data via entity resolution and additively homomorphic encryption

Open access
Hardy, Stephen, Henecka, Wilko, Ivey-Law, Hamish, Nock, Richard, Patrini, Giorgio, Smith, Guillaume, Thorne, Brian·2017·arXiv

Abstract

Consider two data providers, each maintaining private records of different feature sets about common entities. They aim to learn a linear model jointly in a federated setting, namely, data is local and a shared model is trained from locally computed updates. In contrast with most work on distributed learning, in this scenario (i) data is split vertically, i.e. by features, (ii) only one data provider knows the target variable and (iii) entities are not linked across the data providers. Hence, to the challenge of private learning, we add the potentially negative consequences of mistakes in entity resolution. Our contribution is twofold. First, we describe a three-party end-to-end solution in two phases ---privacy-preserving entity resolution and federated logistic regression over messages encrypted with an additively homomorphic scheme---, secure against a honest-but-curious adversary. The system allows learning without either exposing data in the clear or sharing which entities the data providers have in common. Our implementation is as accurate as a naive non-private solution that brings all data in one place, and scales to problems with millions of entities with hundreds of features. Second, we provide what is to our knowledge the first formal analysis of the impact of entity resolution's mistakes on learning, with results on how optimal classifiers, empirical losses, margins and generalisation abilities are affected. Our results bring a clear and strong support for federated learning: under reasonable assumptions on the number and magnitude of entity resolution's mistakes, it can be extremely beneficial to carry out federated learning in the setting where each peer's data provides a significant uplift to the other.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1711.10677

Cites

28 of 28 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?

  • Trusted Distributed AI extends the principles of federated and collaborative learning with trust guarantees, ensuring that distributed models can be trained and deployed without exposing sensitive data or compromising model integrity.

    “Trusted Distributed AI extends the principles of federated and collaborative learning with trust guarantees, ensuring that distributed models can be trained and deployed without exposing sensitive data or compromising model integrity [235,236].”

    From Anomaly detection and root-cause identification in microservices: a survey (2026) · cites this paper as [236]

    The Abstract (p. 1) describes federated model training without exposing data in the clear, and the Security environment and primitives section (p. 5) specifies privacy protections under an honest-but-curious security model. The paper does not establish guarantees for model deployment or model integrity; it assumes participants follow the protocol without tampering. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The vertical FL setting requires a more complex mechanism to decompose the loss function at each party than horizontal FL.

    “Unlike sample-partitioned/horizontal FL, the vertical FL setting requires a more complex mechanism to decompose the loss function at each party [5], [15], [16].”

    From SecureBoost: A Lossless Federated Learning Framework (2021) · cites this paper as [5]

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

1 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hardy, S., Henecka, W., Ivey-Law, H., Nock, R., Patrini, G., Smith, G., & Thorne, B.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2017
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2773194476
Cited by
431
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 83 · 2021: 88 · 2020: 69 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 6
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cryptography and Data Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cloud Data Security Solutions
Keywords
vertical partitioning, entity resolution, honest-but-curious adversary, generalization, linear models, three-party protocol

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