Shuffle Model of Differential Privacy: Numerical Composition for Federated Learning
Source abstract
Abstract
In decentralized scenarios without fully trustable parties (e.g., in mobile edge computing or IoT environments), the shuffle model has recently emerged as a promising paradigm for differentially private federated learning. Despite many efforts of privacy accounting for federated learning with many sequential rounds in the shuffle model, they suffer from generality and tightness. For example, existing accounting methods are targeted to single-message shuffle protocols (which have intrinsic utility barriers compared to multi-message ones), and are untight for the commonly used vector randomized response randomizer. As countermeasures, we first present a tight total variation characterization of vector randomized response randomizers in the shuffle model, which demonstrates over 20% budget conservation. We then unify the representation of single-message and multi-message shuffle protocols and derive their privacy loss distribution (PLD). The PLDs are finally composed by Fourier analysis to obtain the overall privacy loss of many sequential rounds in the shuffle model. Through simulations in federated decision tree building and federated deep learning, we show that our approach saves up to 80% budget when compared to existing methods.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data · Internet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting · Cryptography and Data Security
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Artificial Intelligence, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510700, China
Funding
Guangzhou Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation
References (32)
Show source-provided references
1. Secure aggregation is insecure: Category inference attack on federated learning10.1109/TDSC.2021.3128679 ↗
2. Zhu, L., Liu, Z., and Han, S. (2019). Deep leakage from gradients. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., 32.
3. Dwork, C. (2008, January 25–29). Differential privacy: A survey of results. Proceedings of the International Conference on Theory and Applications of Models of Computation, Xi’an, China.
4. Apple, and Google (2025, January 31). Exposure Notification Privacy-Preserving Analytics White Paper. Available online: https://covid19-static.cdn-apple.com/applications/covid19/current/static/contact-tracing/pdf/ENPA_White_Paper.pdf.
5. Talwar, K., Wang, S., McMillan, A., Jina, V., Feldman, V., Bansal, P., Basile, B., Cahill, A., Chan, Y.S., and Chatzidakis, M. (2024). Samplable anonymous aggregation for private federated data analysis. arXiv.10.1145/3658644.3690224 ↗
6. Erlingsson, Ú., Feldman, V., Mironov, I., Raghunathan, A., Talwar, K., and Thakurta, A. (2019, January 6–9). Amplification by shuffling: From local to central differential privacy via anonymity. Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, San Diego, CA, USA.10.1137/1.9781611975482.151 ↗
7. Feldman, V., McMillan, A., and Talwar, K. (2022, January 7–10). Hiding among the clones: A simple and nearly optimal analysis of privacy amplification by shuffling. Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 62nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), Denver, CO, USA.10.1109/FOCS52979.2021.00096 ↗
8. Feldman, V., McMillan, A., and Talwar, K. (2023, January 22–25). Stronger privacy amplification by shuffling for rényi and approximate differential privacy. Proceedings of the 2023 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), SIAM, Florence, Italy.10.1137/1.9781611977554.ch181 ↗
9. Privacy Amplification via Shuffling: Unified, Simplified, and Tightened10.14778/3659437.3659444 ↗
10. Girgis, A., Data, D., Diggavi, S., Kairouz, P., and Suresh, A.T. (2021, January 13–15). Shuffled model of differential privacy in federated learning. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, PMLR, Virtual.
11. Zhu, Y., Dong, J., and Wang, Y.X. (2022, January 28–30). Optimal accounting of differential privacy via characteristic function. Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, PMLR, Virtual.
12. Ghazi, B., Golowich, N., Kumar, R., Pagh, R., and Velingker, A. (2021, January 17–21). On the power of multiple anonymous messages: Frequency estimation and selection in the shuffle model of differential privacy. Proceedings of the Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques, Zagreb, Croatia.10.1007/978-3-030-77883-5_16 ↗
13. Koskela, A., Heikkilä, M.A., and Honkela, A. (2025, January 31). Numerical Accounting in the Shuffle Model of Differential Privacy. Trans. Mach. Learn. Res., Available online: https://openreview.net/forum?id=11osftjEbF.
14. Cheu, A., and Zhilyaev, M. (2022, January 22–26). Differentially private histograms in the shuffle model from fake users. Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1109/SP46214.2022.9833614 ↗
15. Balle, B., Bell, J., Gascon, A., and Nissim, K. (2020, January 9–13). Private summation in the multi-message shuffle model. Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Virtual.10.1145/3372297.3417242 ↗
16. Luo, Q., Wang, Y., and Yi, K. (2022, January 7–11). Frequency Estimation in the Shuffle Model with Almost a Single Message. Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Los Angeles, CA, USA.10.1145/3548606.3560608 ↗
17. Chang, A., Ghazi, B., Kumar, R., and Manurangsi, P. (2021, January 18–24). Locally private k-means in one round. Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, Virtual.
18. Tenenbaum, J., Kaplan, H., Mansour, Y., and Stemmer, U. (2021, January 6–14). Differentially private multi-armed bandits in the shuffle model. Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Virtual.
19. Multi-message shuffled privacy in federated learning10.1109/JSAIT.2024.3366225 ↗
20. Balle, B., Bell, J., Gascón, A., and Nissim, K. (2019, January 18–22). The privacy blanket of the shuffle model. Proceedings of the 39th Annual International Cryptology Conference, Santa Barbara, CA, USA.10.1007/978-3-030-26951-7_22 ↗
21. What can we learn privately?10.1137/090756090 ↗
22. Cheu, A., Smith, A., Ullman, J., Zeber, D., and Zhilyaev, M. (2019, January 19–23). Distributed differential privacy via shuffling. Proceedings of the EUROCRYPT, Darmstadt, Germany.10.1007/978-3-030-17653-2_13 ↗
23. Dingledine, R., Mathewson, N., and Syverson, P. (2004, January 9–13). Tor: The Second-Generation Onion Router. Proceedings of the 13th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 04), San Diego, CA, USA.10.21236/ADA465464 ↗
24. Bittau, A., Erlingsson, Ú., Maniatis, P., Mironov, I., Raghunathan, A., Lie, D., Rudominer, M., Kode, U., Tinnes, J., and Seefeld, B. (2017, January 28). Prochlo: Strong privacy for analytics in the crowd. Proceedings of the 26th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, Shanghai, China.10.1145/3132747.3132769 ↗
25. Xu, S., Zheng, Y., and Hua, Z. (2024, January 14–18). Camel: Communication-Efficient and Maliciously Secure Federated Learning in the Shuffle Model of Differential Privacy. Proceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. CCS ’24.10.1145/3658644.3690200 ↗
26. Gopi, S., Lee, Y.T., and Wutschitz, L. (2021, January 6–14). Numerical composition of differential privacy. Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Virtual.10.29012/jpc.870 ↗
27. Koskela, A., Jälkö, J., and Honkela, A. (2020, January 26–28). Computing tight differential privacy guarantees using fft. Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, PMLR, Online.
28. Privacy amplification via compression: Achieving the optimal privacy-accuracy-communication trade-off in distributed mean estimation
29. Privacy enhancement via dummy points in the shuffle model10.1109/TDSC.2023.3263162 ↗
30. Rokach, L., and Maimon, O. (2005). Decision trees. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Handbook, Springer.10.1007/0-387-25465-X_9 ↗
31. Liu, F.T., Ting, K.M., and Zhou, Z.H. (2008, January 15–19). Isolation forest. Proceedings of the 2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, Pisa, Italy.10.1109/ICDM.2008.17 ↗
32. Genetic K-means algorithm10.1109/3477.764879 ↗