PreprintCited by 146Privacy-Preserving Technologies in DataAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningCloud Data Security Solutions

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 147 of the 152 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Privacy in Deep Learning: A Survey

Open access

Abstract

The ever-growing advances of deep learning in many areas including vision, recommendation systems, natural language processing, etc., have led to the adoption of Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) in production systems. The availability of large datasets and high computational power are the main contributors to these advances. The datasets are usually crowdsourced and may contain sensitive information. This poses serious privacy concerns as this data can be misused or leaked through various vulnerabilities. Even if the cloud provider and the communication link is trusted, there are still threats of inference attacks where an attacker could speculate properties of the data used for training, or find the underlying model architecture and parameters. In this survey, we review the privacy concerns brought by deep learning, and the mitigating techniques introduced to tackle these issues. We also show that there is a gap in the literature regarding test-time inference privacy, and propose possible future research directions.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2004.12254

Cites

147 of 147 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 152 references

5 of the 152 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. [29][29] S. A. Ossia, A. Taheri, A. S. Shamsabadi, K. Katevas, H. Haddadi, and H. R. Rabiee, 'Deep private-feature extraction,' IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , vol. 32, pp. 54-66, 2018. -
  2. [31][31] F. Mireshghallah, M. Taram, A. Jalali, D. Tullsen, and H. Esmaeilzadeh, 'Shredder: Learning noise distributions to protect inference privacy,' in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems , ASPLOS '20, (New York, NY, USA), Association for Computing Machinery, March 2020. -
  3. [45][45] Z. Yang, E.-C. Chang, and Z. Liang, 'Adversarial neural network inversion via auxiliary knowledge alignment,' ArXiv , vol. abs/1902.08552, 2019. - · arXiv
  4. [56][56] X. Wu, M. Fredrikson, S. Jha, and J. F. Naughton, 'A methodology for formalizing modelinversion attacks,' in 2016 IEEE 29th Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF) , pp. 355-370, June 2016. -
  5. [70][70] P. Kairouz, S. Oh, and P. Viswanath, 'Extremal mechanisms for local differential privacy,' CoRR , vol. abs/1407.1338, 2014. - · arXiv
  6. [71][71] Ú. Erlingsson, A. Korolova, and V. Pihur, 'RAPPOR: randomized aggregatable privacypreserving ordinal response,' CoRR , vol. abs/1407.6981, 2014. - · arXiv
  7. [76][76] D. Kifer and A. Machanavajjhala, 'Pufferfish: A framework for mathematical privacy definitions,' ACM Trans. Database Syst. , vol. 39, Jan. 2014. -
  8. [78][78] M. E. Andrés, N. E. Bordenabe, K. Chatzikokolakis, and C. Palamidessi, 'Geoindistinguishability: Differential privacy for location-based systems,' in Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security , CCS '13, (New York, NY, USA), p. 901-914, Association for Computing Machinery, 2013. -
  9. [79][79] S. Goldwasser and S. Micali, 'Probabilistic encryption,' Journal of computer and system sciences , vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 270-299, 1984. -
  10. [110][110] P. Mohassel and P. Rindal, 'Aby3: A mixed protocol framework for machine learning,' in Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security , CCS '18, (New York, NY, USA), p. 35-52, Association for Computing Machinery, 2018. -
  11. [123][123] E. Bagdasaryan, O. Poursaeed, and V. Shmatikov, 'Differential privacy has disparate impact on model accuracy,' in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pp. 15479-15488, 2019. -
  12. [125][125] B. Jayaraman and D. Evans, 'Evaluating differentially private machine learning in practice,' in 28th { USENIX } Security Symposium ( { USENIX } Security 19) , pp. 1895-1912, 2019. -
  13. [128][128] J. Wang, J. Zhang, W. Bao, X. Zhu, B. Cao, and P. S. Yu, 'Not just privacy,' Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , Jul 2018. -
  14. [136][136] M. S. Riazi, C. Weinert, O. Tkachenko, E. M. Songhori, T. Schneider, and F. Koushanfar, 'Chameleon: A hybrid secure computation framework for machine learning applications,' CoRR , vol. abs/1801.03239, 2018. - · arXiv
  15. [140][140] C. Juvekar, V. Vaikuntanathan, and A. Chandrakasan, 'Gazelle: A low latency framework for secure neural network inference,' in Proceedings of the 27th USENIX Conference on Security Symposium , SEC'18, (USA), p. 1651-1668, USENIX Association, 2018. -
  16. [153][153] F. Mo, A. S. Shamsabadi, K. Katevas, S. Demetriou, I. Leontiadis, A. Cavallaro, and H. Haddadi, 'Darknetz: Towards model privacy at the edge using trusted execution environments,' ArXiv , vol. abs/2004.05703, 2020. - · arXiv
  17. [160][160] C. Canella, D. Genkin, L. Giner, D. Gruss, M. Lipp, M. Minkin, D. Moghimi, F. Piessens, M. Schwarz, B. Sunar, J. Van Bulck, and Y. Yarom, 'Fallout: Leaking data on meltdownresistant cpus,' in Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) , ACM, 2019. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–146 of 146

Metadata

Authors
Mireshghallah, F., Taram, M., Vepakomma, P., Singh, A., Raskar, R., & Esmaeilzadeh, H.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3018763859
Cited by
106
References
152
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 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 › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cloud Data Security Solutions
Keywords
inference attacks, deep neural network, sensitive data, data leakage, privacy-preserving techniques, crowdsourced 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