PreprintCited by 54Privacy-Preserving Technologies in DataCryptography and Data SecurityCloud Data Security Solutions

Boosting Privately: Privacy-Preserving Federated Extreme Boosting for Mobile Crowdsensing

Open access
Liu, Yang, Ma, Zhuo, Liu, Ximeng, Ma, Siqi, Nepal, Surya, Deng, Robert·2019·arXiv

Abstract

Recently, Google and other 24 institutions proposed a series of open challenges towards federated learning (FL), which include application expansion and homomorphic encryption (HE). The former aims to expand the applicable machine learning models of FL. The latter focuses on who holds the secret key when applying HE to FL. For the naive HE scheme, the server is set to master the secret key. Such a setting causes a serious problem that if the server does not conduct aggregation before decryption, a chance is left for the server to access the user's update. Inspired by the two challenges, we propose FedXGB, a federated extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) scheme supporting forced aggregation. FedXGB mainly achieves the following two breakthroughs. First, FedXGB involves a new HE based secure aggregation scheme for FL. By combining the advantages of secret sharing and homomorphic encryption, the algorithm can solve the second challenge mentioned above, and is robust to the user dropout. Then, FedXGB extends FL to a new machine learning model by applying the secure aggregation scheme to the classification and regression tree building of XGBoost. Moreover, we conduct a comprehensive theoretical analysis and extensive experiments to evaluate the security, effectiveness, and efficiency of FedXGB. The results indicate that FedXGB achieves less than 1% accuracy loss compared with the original XGBoost, and can provide about 23.9% runtime and 33.3% communication reduction for HE based model update aggregation of FL.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1907.10218

Cites

38 of 38 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?

  • Study [94] shows an FL-based mobile crowdsensing scheme with privacy-preserving XGBoost training; simulations on MNIST reveal high accuracy over 98% and reduction of 23.9% runtime and 33.3% communication latency for gradient aggregation.

    “The study in [94] shows an FL-based mobile crowdsensing scheme, with a focus on privacy-preserving XGBoost training with the cooperation of multiple mobile users.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, Y., Ma, Z., Liu, X., Ma, S., Nepal, S., & Deng, R.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2963829227
Cited by
52
References
40
Citations by year
2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 1
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
federated learning, homomorphic encryption, privacy-preserving machine learning, extreme gradient boosting, secure aggregation, secret sharing, mobile crowdsensing, communication efficiency, XGBoost

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