IP Library › Granted Patent US 12,645,995
Granted Patent B2
US 12,645,995 · App. 18/156,915 · Granted Jun 2, 2026

Training machine-learned models with label differential privacy

Inventors: Badih Ghazi (Santa Clara, CA); Pritish Kamath (Mountain View, CA); Shanmugasundaram Ravikumar (Piedmont, CA); Ethan Jacob Leeman (Arlington, MA); Pasin Manurangsi (Bangkok, TH); Avinash Vaidyanathan Varadarajan (Los Altos, CA); Chiyuan Zhang (Mountain View, CA)
Assignee: GOOGLE LLC
G06N20/00
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,645,995
App. No.
18/156,915
Granted
Jun 2, 2026
Kind
B2
Abstract

An example method is provided for conducting differentially private communication of training data for training a machine-learned model. Initial label data can be obtained that corresponds to feature data. A plurality of label bins can be determined to respectively provide representative values for initial label values assigned to the plurality of label bins. Noised label data can be generated, based on a probability distribution over the plurality of label bins, to correspond to the initial label data, the probability distribution characterized by, for a respective noised label corresponding to a respective initial label of the initial label data, a first probability for returning a representative value of a label bin to which the respective initial label is assigned, and a second probability for returning another value. The noised label data can be communicated for training the machine-learned model.

Claims (52)

1 . A computer-implemented method for differentially private communication of training data for training a machine-learned model, the method comprising:

obtaining, by a computing system comprising one or more processors, initial label data that corresponds to feature data;

determining, by the computing system, a plurality of label bins respectively providing representative values for initial label values assigned to the plurality of label bins;

generating, by the computing system and based on a probability distribution over the plurality of label bins, noised label data corresponding to the initial label data, the probability distribution characterized by, for a respective noised label corresponding to a respective initial label of the initial label data:

a first probability of returning a representative value of a label bin to which the respective initial label is assigned, and

a second probability of returning another value;

wherein the probability distribution is shaped by a first privacy parameter value; and

communicating, by the computing system, the noised label data for training the machine-learned model.

2 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the other value is a representative value of any other label bin to which the respective initial label is not assigned.

3 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the first probability is related to the first privacy parameter value.

4 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , wherein the representative values are determined using an optimization objective that corresponds to expected values of a noise-based loss.

5 . The computer-implemented method of claim 4 , wherein the noise-based loss comprises a regression loss.

6 . The computer-implemented method of claim 4 , wherein the noise-based loss is determined between noised labels and corresponding initial labels.

7 . The computer-implemented method of claim 4 , wherein the optimization objective is computed by weighting respective computed values of the noise-based loss based on probabilities associated with the respective computed values.

8 . The computer-implemented method of claim 7 , wherein the probabilities are obtained from a prior distribution of probabilities associated with the initial label data used to compute the noise-based loss.

9 . The computer-implemented method of claim 8 , comprising:

estimating, by the computing system, the prior distribution of probabilities associated with the initial label data; and

weighting, by the computing system, computed values of the noise-based loss based on the estimated prior distribution of probabilities.

10 . The computer-implemented method of claim 9 , wherein estimating the prior distribution comprises:

determining, by the computing system, a histogram over the initial label data;

injecting, by the computing system, noise into the histogram; and

determining, by the computing system, the estimated prior distribution.

11 . The computer-implemented method of claim 10 , wherein the injected noise is inversely correlated to a second privacy parameter value.

12 . The computer-implemented method of claim 8 , wherein the noised label data is generated by a user computing device, and wherein the prior distribution is generated based on a history of initial label data associated with a user account corresponding to the user computing device.

13 . The computer-implemented method of claim 8 , wherein the noised label data is generated by a user computing device, and wherein the prior distribution is obtained from a remote computing device.

14 . The computer-implemented method of claim 13 , wherein the prior distribution comprises global prior data generated based on global label data associated with a plurality of user devices.

15 . The computer-implemented method of claim 13 , comprising:

submitting, by the computing system and to an application programming interface of the remote computing device, the initial label data.

16 . The computer-implemented method of claim 1 , comprising:

obtaining, by the computing system and from a plurality of user computing devices, the initial label data; and

generating, by the computing system, the noised label data, wherein the noised label data is aggregated across the plurality of user computing devices.

17 . The computer-implemented method of claim 16 , comprising:

transmitting, by the computing system and to a third-party device, the noised label data.

18 . The computer-implemented method of claim 17 , wherein the third-party device has access to the feature data.

19 . A computing system for conducting differentially private communication of training data for training a machine-learned model, the system comprising:

one or more processors; and

one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the computing system to perform operations, the operations comprising:

obtaining initial label data that corresponds to feature data;

determining a plurality of label bins respectively providing representative values for initial label values assigned to the plurality of label bins;

generating, based on a probability distribution over the plurality of label bins, noised label data corresponding to the initial label data, the probability distribution characterized by, for a respective noised label corresponding to a respective initial label of the initial label data:

a first probability of returning a representative value of a label bin to which the respective initial label is assigned, and

a second probability of returning another value;

wherein the probability distribution is shaped by a first privacy parameter value; and

communicating the noised label data for training the machine-learned model.

20 . One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors to cause a computing system to perform operations for conducting differentially private communication of training data for training a machine-learned model, the operations comprising:

obtaining initial label data that corresponds to feature data;

determining a plurality of label bins respectively providing representative values for initial label values assigned to the plurality of label bins;

generating, based on a probability distribution over the plurality of label bins, noised label data corresponding to the initial label data, the probability distribution characterized by, for a respective noised label corresponding to a respective initial label of the initial label data:

a first probability of returning a representative value of a label bin to which the respective initial label is assigned, and

a second probability of returning another value;

wherein the probability distribution is shaped by a first privacy parameter value; and

communicating the noised label data for training the machine-learned model.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Mar 10, 2023
From: GHAZI, BADIH; KARNATH, PRITISH; RAVIKUMAR, SHANMUGASUNDARAM; LEEMAN, ETHAN JACOB; MANURANGSI, PASIN; VARADARAJAN, AVINASH VAIDYANATHAN; ZHANG, CHIYUAN
To: GOOGLE LLC
Reel/Frame 062944/0332 →
Continuity (1)
Related Publication 20240265294A1 · Aug 8, 2024
References Cited (48)
US 20180100862A1 · Goix · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20210174196A1 · Desmond · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 20210357680A1 · Chen · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 20210397895A1 · Sun · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 20220068478A1 · Yu · 2022 [cited by examiner]
US 20220340171A1 · Halder · 2022 [cited by examiner]
US 20230169323A1 · Kolagunda · 2023 [cited by examiner]
US 20240005547A1 · Lin · 2024 [cited by examiner]
CN 114255381A · 2022 [cited by examiner]
WO WO2021195688A1 · 2021 [cited by examiner]
Abadi et al., “Deep Learning with Differential Privacy”, arXiv:1607.00133v2, Oct. 24, 2016, 14 pages. [cited by applicant]
Badanidiyuru et al., “Handling Many Conversations Per Click in Modeling Delayed Feedback”, arXiv:2101.02284v1, Jan. 6, 2021, 9 pages. [cited by applicant]
Beimel, “Private Learning and Sanitization: Pure vs. Approximate Differential Privacy”, arXiv:1407.2674v1, Jul. 10, 2014, 45 pages. [cited by applicant]
Cameron et al., “Regression Analysis of Count Data”, Cambridge University Press, 2013, 16 pages. [cited by applicant]
Cao et al., “Data Poisoning Attacks to Local Differential Privacy Protocols”, arXiv:1911.02046v2, Dec. 9, 2020, 18 pages. [cited by applicant]
Chaudhuri et al., “Differentially Private Empirical Risk Minimization”, arXiv:0912.0071v5, Feb. 16, 2011, 40 pages. [cited by applicant]
Chaudhuri et al., “Sample Complexity Bounds for Differentially Private Learning”, Twenty-fourth Annual Conference on Learning Theory, vol. 19, 2011, pp. 155-186. [cited by applicant]
Diakonikolas et al., “Differentially Private Learning of Structured Discrete Distributions”, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28, 2015, 9 pages. [cited by applicant]
Dwork et al., “The Algorithmic Foundations of Differential Privacy” Foundations and Trends® in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 9, Issue 3-4, Aug. 2014, pp. 211-407. [cited by applicant]
Dwork et al., “Calibrating Noise to Sensitivity in Private Data Analysis”, Theory of Cryptography, Third Theory of Cryptography Conference, TCC 2006, New York, New York, United States, Mar. 4-7, 2006, 20 pages. [cited by applicant]
Dwork et al., “Our Data, Ourselves: Privacy via Distributed Noise Generation”, International Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptographic Techniques, May 28, 2006, pp. 486-503. [cited by applicant]
Esfandiari et al., “Label Differential Privacy Via Clustering”, arXiv:2110.02159v1, Oct. 5, 2021, 24 pages. [cited by applicant]
Geng et al., “The Optimal Mechanism in Differential Privacy”, arXiv:1212.1186v3, Oct. 30, 2013, 40 pages. [cited by applicant]
Ghazi et al., “Deep Learning with Label Differential Privacy”, arXiv:2102.06062v2, Oct. 26, 2021, 29 pages. [cited by applicant]
Ghazi et al., “Differentially Private Aggregation in the Shuffle Model: Almost Central Accuracy in Almost a Single Message”, arXiv:2109.13158v1, Sep. 27, 2021, 31 pages. [cited by applicant]
Ghazi et al., “Regression with Label Differential Privacy”, arXiv:2212.06074v1, Dec. 12, 2022, 29 pages. [cited by applicant]
Ghosh et al., “Universally Utility-Maximizing Privacy Mechanisms”, arXiv:0811.2841v3, Mar. 20, 2009, 16 pages. [cited by applicant]
Kairouz et al., “Advances and Open Problems in Federated Learning”, arXiv:1912.04977v3, Mar. 9, 2021, 121 pages. [cited by applicant]
Kairouz et al., “Extremal Mechanisms for Local Differential Privacy”, arXiv:1407.1338v3, Nov. 19, 2015, 52 pages. [cited by applicant]
Kingma et al., “Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization”, arXiv:1412.6980v9, Jan. 30, 2017, 15 pages. [cited by applicant]
Li et al., “Label Leakage and Protection in Two-party Split Learning”, arXiv:2102.08504v3, May 24, 2022, 27 pages. [cited by applicant]
Loshchilov et al., “SGDR: Stochastic Gradient Descent with Warm Restarts”, arXiv:1608.03983v5, May 3, 2017, 16 pages. [cited by applicant]
Malek et al., “Antipodes of Label Differential Privacy: PATE and ALIBI”, arXiv:2106.03408v2, Oct. 29, 2021, 17 pages. [cited by applicant]
McSherry et al., “Mechanism Design via Differential Privacy”, Forty-eighth Annual Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Providence, Rhode Island, United States, … [cited by applicant]
Papernot et al., “Scalable Private Learning with PATE”, arXiv:1802.08908v1, Feb. 24, 2018, 34 pages. [cited by applicant]
Papernot et al., “Semi-supervised Knowledge Transfer for Deep Learning from Private Training Data”, arXiv:1610.05755v4, Mar. 3, 2017, 16 pages. [cited by applicant]
Radebaugh et al., “Introducing TensorFlow Privacy: Learning with Differential Privacy for Training Data”, Mar. 6, 2019, https://blog.tensorflow.org/2019/03/introducing-tensorflow-privacy-learning.html, Retrieved on Apr.… [cited by applicant]
Schuh, “Building a More Private Web: A Path Towards Making Third Party Cookies Obsolete”, Jan. 14, 2020, https://blog.chromium.org/2020/01/building-more-private-web-path-towards.html, retrieved on Apr. 6, 2023, 4 pages. [cited by applicant]
Song et al., “Stochastic Gradient Descent with Differentially Private Updates”, 2013 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Global Conference on Signal and Information Processing, Austin, Texas, United States… [cited by applicant]
Tallis et al., “Reacting to Variations in Product Demand: An Application for Conversion Rate (CR) Prediction in Sponsored Search”, arXiv:1806.08211v1, May 25, 2018, 9 pages. [cited by applicant]
Tang et al., “Machine Learning with Differentially Private Labels: Mechanisms and Frameworks”, Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, Issue 4, 2022, pp. 332-350. [cited by applicant]
Wang et al., “Answering Multi-Dimensional Analytical Queries under Local Differential Privacy”, Special Interest Group on Management of Data '19: Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Management of Data, A… [cited by applicant]
Wang et al., “On Sparse Linear Regression in the Local Differential Privacy Model”, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 67, No. 2, Feb. 2022, 19 pages. [cited by applicant]
Warner, “Randomized Response: A Survey Technique for Eliminating Evasive Answer Bias”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 60, Issue 309, 1965, pp. 63-69. [cited by applicant]
Wilander, “Full Third-Party Cookie Blocking and More”, Mar. 24, 2020, https://webkit.org/blog/10218/full-third-party-cookie-blocking-and-more/, retrieved on Oct. 3, 2023, 8. [cited by applicant]
Wood, “Today's Firefox Blocks Third-Party Tracking Cookies and Cryptomining by Default”, Sep. 3, 2019, https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/todays-firefox-blocks-third-party-tracking-cookies-and-cryptomining-by-… [cited by applicant]
Yousefpour et al., “Opacus: User-Friendly Differential Privacy Library in PyTorch”, arXiv:2109.12298v4, Aug. 22, 2022, 18 pages. [cited by applicant]
Zhang et al., “Functional Mechanism: Regression Analysis under Differential Privacy”, arXiv:1208.0219v1, Aug. 1, 2012, 12 pages. [cited by applicant]