Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 126 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 45 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 29 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 32 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 127 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 183 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 425 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5 38 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Adap DP-FL: Differentially Private Federated Learning with Adaptive Noise (2211.15893v1)

Published 29 Nov 2022 in cs.LG, cs.CR, and cs.DC

Abstract: Federated learning seeks to address the issue of isolated data islands by making clients disclose only their local training models. However, it was demonstrated that private information could still be inferred by analyzing local model parameters, such as deep neural network model weights. Recently, differential privacy has been applied to federated learning to protect data privacy, but the noise added may degrade the learning performance much. Typically, in previous work, training parameters were clipped equally and noises were added uniformly. The heterogeneity and convergence of training parameters were simply not considered. In this paper, we propose a differentially private scheme for federated learning with adaptive noise (Adap DP-FL). Specifically, due to the gradient heterogeneity, we conduct adaptive gradient clipping for different clients and different rounds; due to the gradient convergence, we add decreasing noises accordingly. Extensive experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate that our Adap DP-FL outperforms previous methods significantly.

Citations (17)

Summary

  • The paper introduces an adaptive mechanism that tailors gradient clipping and noise scale reduction based on model convergence to improve privacy-utility trade-offs in federated learning.
  • The paper’s methodology leverages differential privacy by dynamically adjusting noise scales and clipping thresholds to mitigate privacy risks under heterogeneous client conditions.
  • Experimental results on MNIST and FashionMNIST demonstrate significant improvements in model accuracy and reduced privacy budget usage compared to existing DP-FL methods.

Adap DP-FL: Differentially Private Federated Learning with Adaptive Noise

The paper "Adap DP-FL: Differentially Private Federated Learning with Adaptive Noise" introduces a new approach to enhance privacy in federated learning (FL) systems through adaptive noise mechanisms via differential privacy (DP). The Adap DP-FL scheme augments traditional federated learning by tailoring both gradient clipping and noise scales adaptively, addressing the heterogeneity and convergence behavior of model parameters.

Federated Learning and Differential Privacy

Traditional FL allows multiple decentralized data holders to collaboratively train machine learning models without sharing raw data, using only parameter updates. Despite this, potential privacy risks persist, such as model inversion attacks that can exploit shared models to infer sensitive data (2211.15893). Differential privacy offers a theoretical framework to mitigate such risks by introducing random perturbations to data outputs, ensuring that no single data point significantly affects the model, thus preserving privacy while maintaining utility. Figure 1

Figure 1: Federated Learning Model.

Adaptive Gradient Clipping

Adaptive gradient clipping addresses the inherent heterogeneity observed in the magnitude of gradients across different clients and rounds. Conventional methods suffer from fixed clipping thresholds, which fail to accommodate dynamic variations, potentially degrading model performance. Adap DP-FL introduces a mechanism that calculates clipping thresholds based on differentially private mean gradient norms from previous rounds, multiplied by a constant factor α\alpha:

Ctk=αiLtkclip(gt1k(xi)2)+N(0,(St1k)2)L2C_{t}^{k}=\alpha * ||\frac{\sum_{i \in L_{t}^k} \operatorname{clip}\left(\left\|g_{t-1}^{k}(x_i)\right\|_{2}\right)+\mathcal{N}\left(0, (S_{t-1}^k)^2 \right)}{L}||_2

This approach balances the bias and noise, optimizing the utility of the learned model. Figure 2

Figure 2

Figure 2: The gradient l2l_2-norm vary with different clients and different rounds in federated learning.

Adaptive Noise Scale Reduction

Adaptive noise scale reduction is implemented by decreasing the noise scale based on model convergence, as indicated by a sequence of validation loss reductions. When the validation loss decreases consecutively, indicating model stabilization, noise scales are reduced by a factor β\beta, optimizing privacy budget allocation and improving model accuracy in later training stages. Figure 3

Figure 3

Figure 3: The variation of noise scale σ\sigma for privacy budget in Adaptive noise scale reduction.

Implementation and Results

The Adap DP-FL method demonstrated significant improvements in model accuracy compared to existing DP-FL methods, using experiments on the MNIST and FashionMNIST datasets. The combination of adaptive gradient clipping and noise scale reduction facilitates better balance between privacy preservation and model performance, achieving higher accuracy while consuming lower privacy budgets. Figure 4

Figure 4

Figure 4

Figure 4

Figure 4: Performance for adaptive gradient clipping method on MNIST dataset and FashionMnist dataset.

Figure 5

Figure 5

Figure 5

Figure 5

Figure 5: Performance for adaptive noise scale reduction method on MNIST dataset and FashionMnist dataset.

Figure 6

Figure 6

Figure 6

Figure 6

Figure 6: Performance for Adap DP-FL method on MNIST dataset and FashionMnist dataset. The clipping factor α\alpha=1.0 and noise reduction factor β\beta=0.9999 for Adap DP-FL in MNIST datasets. The clipping factor α\alpha=0.01 and noise reduction factor β\beta=0.9998 for Adap DP-FL in FashionMnist datasets.

Conclusion

The Adap DP-FL framework significantly enhances privacy in federated learning systems via adaptive mechanisms for gradient clipping and noise scale reduction, fostering improved model utility alongside robust privacy guarantees. The practical deployment of these techniques promises better optimization capabilities under constrained privacy budgets, highlighting the potential for future research into adaptive privacy-preserving architectures in federated learning environments.

Ai Generate Text Spark Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Knowledge Gaps

Knowledge gaps, limitations, and open questions

Below is a concise list of unresolved issues and open directions that the paper does not address but that are important for future work.

  • Formal privacy accounting with data-dependent clipping: Provide a rigorous proof that using previous-round DP-noised statistics to set the next round’s clipping thresholds preserves the intended DP guarantees, including how data-dependent sensitivity CtkC_t^k interacts with the RDP accountant across rounds.
  • Correctness of Theorem 1 under varying sensitivity: The stated RDP/DP bound appears to assume unit sensitivity and does not explicitly carry the dependence on the (adaptive, per-round, per-client) clipping threshold CtkC_t^k. A corrected, explicit derivation for variable CtkC_t^k and σt\sigma_t is needed.
  • Subsampling model mismatch: The privacy analysis relies on RDP bounds for the Sampled Gaussian Mechanism, typically derived under Poisson subsampling. The algorithm description suggests fixed-size minibatches. Quantify the impact of without-replacement sampling and, if used, switch to the appropriate bounds.
  • Privacy cost of the validation-triggered scheduler: Clarify whether the validation/verification set used to compute J(wt)J(w_t) is public. If private, include its DP cost and composition in the accountant; if public, justify representativeness and lack of leakage.
  • Post-processing claim for adaptive clipping: Explicitly prove that computing CtkC_t^k from a previous DP output (itself built using Ct1kC_{t-1}^k and σt1\sigma_{t-1}) does not introduce circular dependencies invalidating post-processing, and quantify any additional privacy cost for initializing C0kC_0^k.
  • Initialization details and budget use: The method initializes C0kC_0^k via “training on random noise for one round.” Specify whether this consumes privacy budget, how it’s performed, and its impact on early-stage utility and DP guarantees.
  • Sensitivity of results to hyperparameters: No systematic sensitivity analysis is provided for the clipping factor α\alpha, noise decay factor β\beta, initial noise scale σ0\sigma_0, lot size LL, and learning rate. Provide tuning guidance, robustness ranges, and their effect on both privacy and utility.
  • Privacy-utility tradeoff curves: Results are shown mainly at ϵ=2\epsilon=2. Report comprehensive privacy-utility curves across a range of ϵ\epsilon and multiple δ\delta values to understand general trends and practitioner choices.
  • Client heterogeneity in privacy parameters: The privacy analysis assumes identical qq and σt\sigma_t for all clients, while clipping thresholds are per-client and data-dependent. Provide per-client DP guarantees when clients have heterogeneous datasets, lot sizes, or adaptive parameters.
  • Handling client dropout on budget exhaustion: The algorithm stops client updates once ϵtk>ϵ\epsilon_t^k>\epsilon, but the impact of staggered client exits on convergence, accuracy, and fairness is not analyzed.
  • Computational and memory overhead: Per-example gradients and per-client adaptive clipping can be expensive for larger models. Quantify runtime/memory overhead, and explore efficient implementations (e.g., microbatching, ghost norm/clip, vectorized per-example gradients).
  • Scalability beyond small benchmarks: Experiments are limited to MNIST/FashionMNIST, 10 clients, and a shallow CNN. Evaluate on larger datasets (e.g., CIFAR-10/100), deeper models, more clients (100+), and more realistic non-IID federated settings.
  • Robustness to non-IID severity and participation patterns: Only one non-IID partition scheme is tested with full participation. Study varying degrees of heterogeneity, partial participation, client sampling, stragglers, and cross-device settings.
  • Comparative baselines: Compare against stronger or more recent baselines (e.g., AdaCliP, DP-FTRL, layer-wise/coordinate-wise adaptive clipping, central DP with secure aggregation, LDP-Fed), not only a single constant-noise baseline.
  • Convergence theory: No theoretical convergence or excess risk guarantees are provided for the combination of adaptive clipping and decreasing noise under non-IID data. Provide conditions and bounds to complement empirical findings.
  • Attack resilience evaluation: Empirically evaluate resistance to gradient inversion (DLG/iDLG), membership inference, and property inference under the proposed scheme and compare to baselines to validate privacy beyond formal guarantees.
  • Fairness and client-level disparity: Adaptive clipping may bias updates from clients with smaller gradient norms or smaller datasets. Measure per-client accuracy/contribution disparities and explore fairness-aware variants.
  • Overfitting/generalization under decreasing noise: Analyze whether late-stage low-noise updates increase overfitting or privacy risk; consider noise floors, early stopping, or DP-aware regularization.
  • Scheduler robustness to noisy validation signals: The “three consecutive decreases” trigger is heuristic. Study its sensitivity to validation noise, oscillations, and non-monotonic loss, and compare to alternative schedules (e.g., cosine decay, exponential decay, patience-based thresholds).
  • Choice of δ\delta and practical implications: The paper defaults to δ=105\delta=10^{-5} or $1/|D|$. Justify this choice under different data scales and threat models, and analyze the utility impact of smaller/larger δ\delta.
  • Layer-wise vs norm-wise clipping: Only global per-example norm clipping is considered. Investigate layer-wise or coordinate-wise adaptive clipping in FL and their privacy/utility trade-offs.
  • Client-specific noise schedules: The noise schedule is global (σt\sigma_t), while gradients and convergence rates are per-client. Explore client-specific schedules and how to privately coordinate them.
  • Secure aggregation and threat model: The server is honest-but-curious, yet no secure aggregation or cryptographic protection is used. Assess whether secure aggregation could be combined with the method and its effect on privacy and utility.
  • Communication efficiency: No analysis of communication rounds/bytes is provided. Explore compression, sparsification, or fewer rounds under DP to reduce bandwidth while preserving utility.
  • Multiple local steps per round: The algorithm appears to use a single local step; many FL systems use multiple local epochs. Extend the privacy accountant to multiple local updates per round and evaluate its impact.
  • Impact of class imbalance and label sparsity: The partitioning yields clients with 2–5 labels. Analyze how class imbalance affects adaptive clipping/noise and whether reweighting or per-class clipping is beneficial.
  • Release of schedules and thresholds: Clarify what is revealed (e.g., σt\sigma_t, CtkC_t^k) and whether releasing these values can leak training dynamics. Provide guidance on which metadata can be safely disclosed under DP.
  • Reproducibility details: Key implementation choices (optimizer hyperparameters, exact sampling scheme, accountant parameters for RDP order selection, seeds) are insufficiently specified for rigorous replication; provide full config and code.
Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Open Problems

We found no open problems mentioned in this paper.

Authors (3)

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.