MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

AddShare+: Efficient Selective Additive Secret Sharing Approach for Private Federated Learning

2024· article· en· W4403724102 on OpenAlexaff
Bernard Atiemo Asare, Paula Branco, Iluju Kiringa, Tet Yeap

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Data Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSecret sharingComputer securityTheoretical computer scienceCryptography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Federated Learning (FL) enables collaborative training of Machine Learning (ML) models while maintaining user data privacy. However, leaked model updates can reveal private training data. Existing solutions using additive secret sharing introduce intermediary servers, increasing complexity and communication overhead, and often lack privacy guarantees. We propose AddShare+, which enhances efficiency and scalability by creating additive shares for a subset of model weight parameters and using the Elliptic Curve Integrated Encryption Scheme (ECIES) for faster, lighter model encryption. By sampling and splitting a percentage of local weight parameters, AddShare+ reduces computation and communication costs while maintaining model accuracy. We implemented and evaluated AddShare+ on multiple datasets, comparing it with baseline approaches including FedAvg, SCOTCH, FedShare, and AddShare. Results demonstrate that AddShare+ maintains accuracy while significantly reducing running time per round. Notably, sharing as low as 25% of model weights decreases bandwidth demands by over 5x while preserving accuracy within 0.05 % of the full model. Our empirical results demonstrate significant reductions in running time per round with strong privacy guarantees, highlighting the potential of lightweight partial sharing solutions for privacy-preserving FL in resource-constrained environments, paving the way for more efficient and secure collaborative learning systems.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCryptography and Data SecurityFrench-language works237,207