mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Evaluating the Impact of Local Differential Privacy on Utility Loss via Influence Functions

arXiv 2309.08678 ↗First posted 15 Sep 2023cs.LG cs.CRcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

How to properly set the privacy parameter in differential privacy (DP) has been an open question in DP research since it was first proposed in 2006. In this work, we demonstrate the ability of influence functions to offer insight into how a specific privacy parameter value will affect a model's test loss in the randomized response-based local DP setting. Our proposed method allows a data curator to select the privacy parameter best aligned with their allowed privacy-utility trade-off without requiring heavy computation such as extensive model retraining and data privatization. We consider multiple common randomization scenarios, such as performing randomized response over the features, and/or over the labels, as well as the more complex case of applying a class-dependent label noise correction method to offset the noise incurred by randomization. Further, we provide a detailed discussion over the computational complexity of our proposed approach inclusive of an empirical analysis. Through empirical evaluations we show that for both binary and multi-class settings, influence functions are able to approximate the true change in test loss that occurs when randomized response is applied over features and/or labels with small mean absolute error, especially in cases where noise correction methods are applied.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Sep 2023.

Builds on

19 of 36 references.

References · 19

  1. 2017Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functionscited by 1,741
  2. 2016Making Deep Neural Networks Robust to Label Noise: a Loss Correction Approachcited by 665
  3. 2020Estimating Training Data Influence by Tracing Gradient Descentcited by 580
  4. 2017Differentially Private Federated Learning: A Client Level Perspectivecited by 459
  5. 2014RAPPOR: Randomized Aggregatable Privacy-Preserving Ordinal Responsecited by 272
  6. 2017Collecting Telemetry Data Privatelycited by 149
  7. 2019On the Accuracy of Influence Functions for Measuring Group Effectscited by 147
  8. 2022If Influence Functions are the Answer, Then What is the Question?cited by 144
  9. 2019On Second-Order Group Influence Functions for Black-Box Predictionscited by 79
  10. 2020Locally Private Graph Neural Networkscited by 64
  11. 2022Achieving Fairness at No Utility Cost via Data Reweighing with Influencecited by 38
  12. 2015Local, Private, Efficient Protocols for Succinct Histogramscited by 36
7 more
  1. 2014Differential Privacy: An Economic Method for Choosing Epsiloncited by 35
  2. 2022Understanding Instance-Level Impact of Fairness Constraintscited by 27
  3. 2020Toward Understanding the Influence of Individual Clients in Federated Learningcited by 16
  4. 2019Local Differential Privacy: a tutorialcited by 13
  5. 2021Out-of-Distribution Generalization Analysis via Influence Functioncited by 11
  6. 2020Interpreting Robust Optimization via Adversarial Influence Functionscited by 8
  7. 2018Issues Encountered Deploying Differential Privacycited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1.

1 paper.