MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

EPPS: Efficient Privacy-Preserving Scheme in Distributed Deep Learning

2019· article· en· W3010363409 on OpenAlexaff
Yiran Li, Hongwei Li, Guowen Xu, Sen Liu, Rongxing Lu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomomorphic encryptionComputer scienceCloud computingPaillier cryptosystemEncryptionSecure multi-party computationDifferential privacyComputer securityScheme (mathematics)Private information retrievalAdversary modelAdversaryConstruct (python library)Distributed computingComputer networkCryptographyData miningPublic-key cryptography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a promising training model with Neural Network, distributed deep learning has been widely applied in various scenarios, where clients and the cloud server work together only by sharing local gradients and global parameters. However, research has shown that the adversary can still reconstruct the users' private information even if little information is leaked. To address this problem, several approaches of privacy-preserving distributed training have been exploited with existing mature technologies, such as Differential Privacy, Secure Multi-party Computation and Homomorphic Encryption. However, state of-the-art results are still defective in security, functionality and efficiency. In this paper, we propose an Efficient Privacy Preserving Scheme (EPPS) for distributed deep learning. We claim that our solution achieves the best performance tradeoff between security, efficiency and functionality. Specifically, we adopt the threshold Paillier encryption as the underlying structure to construct our secure training model. Hence, the confidentiality of honest users' of local gradients can be guaranteed, even the cloud server colluding with multiple users. In addition, since users are often accidentally offline due to either network environment or equipment damage, our EPPS can also support users exiting at any phases of the entire work process. Further more, we conducted extensive experiments on real-world data to demonstrate the preferable performance of our proposed scheme.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataFrench-language works237,207