Preserving Node-level Privacy in Graph Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Differential privacy (DP) has seen immense applications in learning on tabular, image, and sequential data where instance-level privacy is concerned. In learning on graphs, contrastingly, works on node-level privacy are highly sparse. Challenges arise as existing DP protocols hardly apply to the message-passing mechanism in Graph Neural Networks (GNNs).In this study, we propose a solution that specifically addresses the issue of node-level privacy. Our protocol consists of two main components: 1) a sampling routine called Heter-Poisson, which employs a specialized node sampling strategy and a series of tailored operations to generate a batch of sub-graphs with desired properties, and 2) a randomization routine that utilizes symmetric multivariate Laplace (SML) noise instead of the commonly used Gaussian noise. Our privacy accounting shows this particular combination provides a non-trivial privacy guarantee. In addition, our protocol enables GNN learning with good performance, as demonstrated by experiments on five real-world datasets; compared with existing baselines, our method shows significant advantages, especially in the high privacy regime. Experimentally, we also 1) perform membership inference attacks against our protocol and 2) apply privacy audit techniques to confirm our protocol’s privacy integrity.In the sequel, we present a study on a seemingly appealing approach [33] (USENIX’23) that protects node-level privacy via differentially private node/instance embeddings. Unfortunately, such work has fundamental privacy flaws, which are identified through a thorough case study. More importantly, we prove an impossibility result of achieving both (strong) privacy and (acceptable) utility through private instance embedding. The implication is that such an approach has intrinsic utility barriers when enforcing differential privacy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".