Paper detail

Private Empirical Risk Minimization Beyond the Worst Case: The Effect of the Constraint Set Geometry

Empirical Risk Minimization (ERM) is a standard technique in machine learning, where a model is selected by minimizing a loss function over constraint set. When the training dataset consists of private information, it is natural to use a differentially private ERM algorithm, and this problem has been the subject of a long line of work started with Chaudhuri and Monteleoni 2008. A private ERM algorithm outputs an approximate minimizer of the loss function and its error can be measured as the difference from the optimal value of the loss function. When the constraint set is arbitrary, the required error bounds are fairly well understood \cite{BassilyST14}. In this work, we show that the geometric properties of the constraint set can be used to derive significantly better results. Specifically, we show that a differentially private version of Mirror Descent leads to error bounds of the form $\tilde{O}(G_{\mathcal{C}}/n)$ for a lipschitz loss function, improving on the $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{p}/n)$ bounds in Bassily, Smith and Thakurta 2014. Here $p$ is the dimensionality of the problem, $n$ is the number of data points in the training set, and $G_{\mathcal{C}}$ denotes the Gaussian width of the constraint set that we optimize over. We show similar improvements for strongly convex functions, and for smooth functions. In addition, we show that when the loss function is Lipschitz with respect to the $\ell_1$ norm and $\mathcal{C}$ is $\ell_1$-bounded, a differentially private version of the Frank-Wolfe algorithm gives error bounds of the form $\tilde{O}(n^{-2/3})$. This captures the important and common case of sparse linear regression (LASSO), when the data $x_i$ satisfies $|x_i|_{\infty} \leq 1$ and we optimize over the $\ell_1$ ball. We show new lower bounds for this setting, that together with known bounds, imply that all our upper bounds are tight.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.