Source author record

Amos Beimel

Amos Beimel appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Cryptography and Security Machine Learning Distributed, Parallel, and Cluster Computing

Catalog footprint

What is connected

6works

3topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2020arXiv

Closure Properties for Private Classification and Online Prediction

Let~$\cH$ be a class of boolean functions and consider a {\it composed class} $\cH'$ that is derived from~$\cH$ using some arbitrary aggregation rule (for example, $\cH'$ may be the class of all 3-wise majority-votes of functions in $\cH$). We upper bound the Littlestone dimension of~$\cH'$ in terms of that of~$\cH$. As a corollary, we derive closure properties for online learning and private PAC learning. The derived bounds on the Littlestone dimension exhibit an undesirable exponential dependence. For private learning, we prove close to optimal bounds that circumvents this suboptimal dependency. The improved bounds on the sample complexity of private learning are derived algorithmically via transforming a private learner for the original class $\cH$ to a private learner for the composed class~$\cH'$. Using the same ideas we show that any ({\em proper or improper}) private algorithm that learns a class of functions $\cH$ in the realizable case (i.e., when the examples are labeled by some function in the class) can be transformed to a private algorithm that learns the class $\cH$ in the agnostic case.

preprint2015arXiv

Learning Privately with Labeled and Unlabeled Examples

A private learner is an algorithm that given a sample of labeled individual examples outputs a generalizing hypothesis while preserving the privacy of each individual. In 2008, Kasiviswanathan et al. (FOCS 2008) gave a generic construction of private learners, in which the sample complexity is (generally) higher than what is needed for non-private learners. This gap in the sample complexity was then further studied in several followup papers, showing that (at least in some cases) this gap is unavoidable. Moreover, those papers considered ways to overcome the gap, by relaxing either the privacy or the learning guarantees of the learner. We suggest an alternative approach, inspired by the (non-private) models of semi-supervised learning and active-learning, where the focus is on the sample complexity of labeled examples whereas unlabeled examples are of a significantly lower cost. We consider private semi-supervised learners that operate on a random sample, where only a (hopefully small) portion of this sample is labeled. The learners have no control over which of the sample elements are labeled. Our main result is that the labeled sample complexity of private learners is characterized by the VC dimension. We present two generic constructions of private semi-supervised learners. The first construction is of learners where the labeled sample complexity is proportional to the VC dimension of the concept class, however, the unlabeled sample complexity of the algorithm is as big as the representation length of domain elements. Our second construction presents a new technique for decreasing the labeled sample complexity of a given private learner, while roughly maintaining its unlabeled sample complexity. In addition, we show that in some settings the labeled sample complexity does not depend on the privacy parameters of the learner.

preprint2014arXiv

Characterizing the Sample Complexity of Private Learners

In 2008, Kasiviswanathan et al. defined private learning as a combination of PAC learning and differential privacy. Informally, a private learner is applied to a collection of labeled individual information and outputs a hypothesis while preserving the privacy of each individual. Kasiviswanathan et al. gave a generic construction of private learners for (finite) concept classes, with sample complexity logarithmic in the size of the concept class. This sample complexity is higher than what is needed for non-private learners, hence leaving open the possibility that the sample complexity of private learning may be sometimes significantly higher than that of non-private learning. We give a combinatorial characterization of the sample size sufficient and necessary to privately learn a class of concepts. This characterization is analogous to the well known characterization of the sample complexity of non-private learning in terms of the VC dimension of the concept class. We introduce the notion of probabilistic representation of a concept class, and our new complexity measure RepDim corresponds to the size of the smallest probabilistic representation of the concept class. We show that any private learning algorithm for a concept class C with sample complexity m implies RepDim(C)=O(m), and that there exists a private learning algorithm with sample complexity m=O(RepDim(C)). We further demonstrate that a similar characterization holds for the database size needed for privately computing a large class of optimization problems and also for the well studied problem of private data release.

preprint2014arXiv

Private Learning and Sanitization: Pure vs. Approximate Differential Privacy

We compare the sample complexity of private learning [Kasiviswanathan et al. 2008] and sanitization~[Blum et al. 2008] under pure $ε$-differential privacy [Dwork et al. TCC 2006] and approximate $(ε,δ)$-differential privacy [Dwork et al. Eurocrypt 2006]. We show that the sample complexity of these tasks under approximate differential privacy can be significantly lower than that under pure differential privacy. We define a family of optimization problems, which we call Quasi-Concave Promise Problems, that generalizes some of our considered tasks. We observe that a quasi-concave promise problem can be privately approximated using a solution to a smaller instance of a quasi-concave promise problem. This allows us to construct an efficient recursive algorithm solving such problems privately. Specifically, we construct private learners for point functions, threshold functions, and axis-aligned rectangles in high dimension. Similarly, we construct sanitizers for point functions and threshold functions. We also examine the sample complexity of label-private learners, a relaxation of private learning where the learner is required to only protect the privacy of the labels in the sample. We show that the VC dimension completely characterizes the sample complexity of such learners, that is, the sample complexity of learning with label privacy is equal (up to constants) to learning without privacy.

preprint2011arXiv

Distributed Private Data Analysis: On Simultaneously Solving How and What

We examine the combination of two directions in the field of privacy concerning computations over distributed private inputs - secure function evaluation (SFE) and differential privacy. While in both the goal is to privately evaluate some function of the individual inputs, the privacy requirements are significantly different. The general feasibility results for SFE suggest a natural paradigm for implementing differentially private analyses distributively: First choose what to compute, i.e., a differentially private analysis; Then decide how to compute it, i.e., construct an SFE protocol for this analysis. We initiate an examination whether there are advantages to a paradigm where both decisions are made simultaneously. In particular, we investigate under which accuracy requirements it is beneficial to adapt this paradigm for computing a collection of functions including binary sum, gap threshold, and approximate median queries. Our results imply that when computing the binary sum of $n$ distributed inputs then: * When we require that the error is $o(\sqrt{n})$ and the number of rounds is constant, there is no benefit in the new paradigm. * When we allow an error of $O(\sqrt{n})$, the new paradigm yields more efficient protocols when we consider protocols that compute symmetric functions. Our results also yield new separations between the local and global models of computations for private data analysis.

preprint2010arXiv

Secure Multiparty Computation with Partial Fairness

A protocol for computing a functionality is secure if an adversary in this protocol cannot cause more harm than in an ideal computation where parties give their inputs to a trusted party which returns the output of the functionality to all parties. In particular, in the ideal model such computation is fair -- all parties get the output. Cleve (STOC 1986) proved that, in general, fairness is not possible without an honest majority. To overcome this impossibility, Gordon and Katz (Eurocrypt 2010) suggested a relaxed definition -- 1/p-secure computation -- which guarantees partial fairness. For two parties, they construct 1/p-secure protocols for functionalities for which the size of either their domain or their range is polynomial (in the security parameter). Gordon and Katz ask whether their results can be extended to multiparty protocols. We study 1/p-secure protocols in the multiparty setting for general functionalities. Our main result is constructions of 1/p-secure protocols when the number of parties is constant provided that less than 2/3 of the parties are corrupt. Our protocols require that either (1) the functionality is deterministic and the size of the domain is polynomial (in the security parameter), or (2) the functionality can be randomized and the size of the range is polynomial. If the size of the domain is constant and the functionality is deterministic, then our protocol is efficient even when the number of parties is O(log log n) (where n is the security parameter). On the negative side, we show that when the number of parties is super-constant, 1/p-secure protocols are not possible when the size of the domain is polynomial.