Differentially Private Natural Gradient Descent
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Under a fixed privacy budget, the utility of differentially private (DP) training is ultimately determined by its optimization efficiency. Standard first-order DP optimizers such as DP-SGD rely solely on local gradients and ignore the underlying loss curvature. This geometric blindness causes severe zigzagging in ill-conditioned landscapes, squandering precious privacy budgets on inefficient iterations. Practitioners are thus trapped in a bind: either stop training prematurely or inject massive per-step noise, both of which critically compromise final model utility. Natural Gradient Descent (NGD) resolves this by preconditioning gradients with curvature, aligning updates with the loss geometry and extracting more efficient signal from every noisy step, offering a principled pathway to break the privacy-utility bottleneck. Despite its theoretical appeal, directly integrating NGD with DP introduces fundamental challenges: curvature estimation itself consumes prohibitive privacy budgets, isotropic DP operations conflict with the anisotropic scaling of NGD, and the inverse curvature catastrophically amplify parameter updates in flat directions, causing training instability. We propose DP-NGD, a practical framework that systematically addresses these obstacles by decoupling curvature estimation from private data, reconciling isotropic DP constraints with anisotropic second-order optimization via a whitened-space mechanism, and dynamically clamping the curvature to stabilize training. Extensive experiments on standard benchmarks demonstrate that DP-NGD achieves state-of-the-art accuracy, breaking through the utility ceilings of first-order baselines while delivering up to a 10× convergence speedup under the same privacy budget.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Jul 2026.
Builds on
22 of 40 references.
References · 22
- 2018Group Normalizationcited by 1,514
- 2020Sharpness-Aware Minimization for Efficiently Improving Generalizationcited by 1,404
- 2014New insights and perspectives on the natural gradient methodcited by 435
- 2016Entropy-SGD: Biasing Gradient Descent Into Wide Valleyscited by 357
- 2018Subsampled R'enyi Differential Privacy and Analytical Moments Accountantcited by 234
- 2019Limitations of the Empirical Fisher Approximation for Natural Gradient Descentcited by 213
- 2019R'enyi Differential Privacy of the Sampled Gaussian Mechanismcited by 199
- 2016A Kronecker-factored approximate Fisher matrix for convolution layerscited by 138
- 2022Automatic Clipping: Differentially Private Deep Learning Made Easier and Strongercited by 87
- 2021Do Not Let Privacy Overbill Utility: Gradient Embedding Perturbation for Private Learningcited by 86
- 2024Exponential Moving Average of Weights in Deep Learning: Dynamics and Benefitscited by 65
- 2022Private Adaptive Optimization with Side Informationcited by 38
10 more
- 2023Differentially Private Image Classification by Learning Priors from Random Processescited by 19
- 2016CIFAR-10: KNN-based Ensemble of Classifierscited by 16
- 2020Bias and Variance of Post-processing in Differential Privacycited by 14
- 2022Edgeworth Accountant: An Analytical Approach to Differential Privacy Compositioncited by 14
- 2019Compatible Natural Gradient Policy Searchcited by 10
- 2022Post-processing of Differentially Private Data: A Fairness Perspectivecited by 9
- 2023DP-Mix: Mixup-based Data Augmentation for Differentially Private Learningcited by 9
- 2024Oracle-Efficient Differentially Private Learning with Public Datacited by 5
- 2025On the inductive bias of infinite-depth ResNets and the bottleneck rankcited by 3
- 2016Neural Dataset Generalitycited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.