MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311530262 · doi:10.3390/electronics11234007

Privacy-Enhanced Federated Learning: A Restrictively Self-Sampled and Data-Perturbed Local Differential Privacy Method

2022· article· en· W4311530262 on OpenAlexaff
Jianzhe Zhao, Mengbo Yang, Ronglin Zhang, Wuganjing Song, Jingran Feng, Stan Matwin

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDifferential privacyComputer scienceMNIST databaseRandomnessInformation privacyVariance (accounting)Federated learningData miningSampling (signal processing)Machine learningArtificial intelligenceDeep learningComputer securityDetector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a popular distributed learning framework, federated learning (FL) enables clients to conduct cooperative training without sharing data, thus having higher security and enjoying benefits in processing large-scale, high-dimensional data. However, by sharing parameters in the federated learning process, the attacker can still obtain private information from the sensitive data of participants by reverse parsing. Local differential privacy (LDP) has recently worked well in preserving privacy for federated learning. However, it faces the inherent problem of balancing privacy, model performance, and algorithm efficiency. In this paper, we propose a novel privacy-enhanced federated learning framework (Optimal LDP-FL) which achieves local differential privacy protection by the client self-sampling and data perturbation mechanisms. We theoretically analyze the relationship between the model accuracy and client self-sampling probability. Restrictive client self-sampling technology is proposed which eliminates the randomness of the self-sampling probability settings in existing studies and improves the utilization of the federated system. A novel, efficiency-optimized LDP data perturbation mechanism (Adaptive-Harmony) is also proposed, which allows an adaptive parameter range to reduce variance and improve model accuracy. Comprehensive experiments on the MNIST and Fashion MNIST datasets show that the proposed method can significantly reduce computational and communication costs with the same level of privacy and model utility.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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