Efficient Public Verification of Private ML via Regularization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Training with differential privacy (DP) guarantees dataset members that they cannot be identified by users of the released model. However, those data providers, and, in general, the public, lack methods to efficiently verify that models trained on their data satisfy DP guarantees. The amount of compute needed to verify DP guarantees for current algorithms scales with the amount of computation required to train the model. In this paper we design the first DP algorithm with near optimal privacy-utility trade-offs but whose DP guarantees can be verified cheaper than training. We focus on DP stochastic convex optimization (DP-SCO), where optimal privacy-utility trade-offs are known. Here we show we can obtain tight privacy-utility trade-offs by privately minimizing a series of regularized objectives and only using the standard DP composition bound. Crucially, this method can be verified with much less compute than training. This leads to the first known DP-SCO algorithm with near optimal privacy-utility whose DP verification scales better than training cost, significantly reducing verification costs on large datasets.
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 | 0.013 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".