How reparametrization trick broke differentially-private text representation learning

February 24, 2022 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐Ÿ› Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics

๐Ÿ‘ป CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Ivan Habernal arXiv ID 2202.12138 Category cs.CL: Computation & Language Cross-listed cs.CR Citations 14 Venue Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
As privacy gains traction in the NLP community, researchers have started adopting various approaches to privacy-preserving methods. One of the favorite privacy frameworks, differential privacy (DP), is perhaps the most compelling thanks to its fundamental theoretical guarantees. Despite the apparent simplicity of the general concept of differential privacy, it seems non-trivial to get it right when applying it to NLP. In this short paper, we formally analyze several recent NLP papers proposing text representation learning using DPText (Beigi et al., 2019a,b; Alnasser et al., 2021; Beigi et al., 2021) and reveal their false claims of being differentially private. Furthermore, we also show a simple yet general empirical sanity check to determine whether a given implementation of a DP mechanism almost certainly violates the privacy loss guarantees. Our main goal is to raise awareness and help the community understand potential pitfalls of applying differential privacy to text representation learning.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

๐Ÿ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt โ€” Computation & Language

๐ŸŒ… ๐ŸŒ… Old Age

Attention Is All You Need

Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, ... (+6 more)

cs.CL ๐Ÿ› NeurIPS ๐Ÿ“š 166.0K cites 9 years ago

Died the same way โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ป Ghosted