Showing 1–13 of 13 results for author: Beimel, A

Dynamic Algorithms Against an Adaptive Adversary: Generic Constructions and Lower Bounds

Authors: Amos Beimel, Haim Kaplan, Yishay Mansour, Kobbi Nissim, Thatchaphol Saranurak, Uri Stemmer

Abstract: A dynamic algorithm against an adaptive adversary is required to be correct when the adversary chooses the next update after seeing the previous outputs of the algorithm. We obtain faster dynamic algorithms against an adaptive adversary and separation results between what is achievable in the oblivious vs. adaptive settings. To get these results we exploit techniques from differential privacy, cry… ▽ More A dynamic algorithm against an adaptive adversary is required to be correct when the adversary chooses the next update after seeing the previous outputs of the algorithm. We obtain faster dynamic algorithms against an adaptive adversary and separation results between what is achievable in the oblivious vs. adaptive settings. To get these results we exploit techniques from differential privacy, cryptography, and adaptive data analysis. We give a general reduction transforming a dynamic algorithm against an oblivious adversary to a dynamic algorithm robust against an adaptive adversary. This reduction maintains several copies of the oblivious algorithm and uses differential privacy to protect their random bits. Using this reduction we obtain dynamic algorithms against an adaptive adversary with improved update and query times for global minimum cut, all pairs distances, and all pairs effective resistance. We further improve our update and query times by showing how to maintain a sparsifier over an expander decomposition that can be refreshed fast. This fast refresh enables it to be robust against what we call a blinking adversary that can observe the output of the algorithm only following refreshes. We believe that these techniques will prove useful for additional problems. On the flip side, we specify dynamic problems that, assuming a random oracle, every dynamic algorithm that solves them against an adaptive adversary must be polynomially slower than a rather straightforward dynamic algorithm that solves them against an oblivious adversary. We first show a separation result for a search problem and then show a separation result for an estimation problem. In the latter case our separation result draws from lower bounds in adaptive data analysis. △ Less

Submitted 6 November, 2021; originally announced November 2021.

Tighter Bounds on Multi-Party Coin Flip** via Augmented Weak Martingales and Differentially Private Sampling

Authors: Amos Beimel, Iftach Haitner, Nikolaos Makriyannis, Eran Omri

Abstract: In his seminal work, Cleve [STOC '86] has proved that any $r$-round coin-flip** protocol can be efficiently biased by $Θ(1/r)$. This lower bound was met for the two-party case by Moran, Naor, and Segev [Journal of Cryptology '16], and the three-party case (up to a $polylog$ factor) by Haitner and Tsfadi [SICOMP '17], and was approached for $n$-party protocols when $n< loglog r$ by Buchbinder, Ha… ▽ More In his seminal work, Cleve [STOC '86] has proved that any $r$-round coin-flip** protocol can be efficiently biased by $Θ(1/r)$. This lower bound was met for the two-party case by Moran, Naor, and Segev [Journal of Cryptology '16], and the three-party case (up to a $polylog$ factor) by Haitner and Tsfadi [SICOMP '17], and was approached for $n$-party protocols when $n< loglog r$ by Buchbinder, Haitner, Levi, and Tsfadia [SODA '17]. For $n> loglog r$, however, the best bias for $n$-party coin-flip** protocols remains $O(n/\sqrt{r})$ achieved by the majority protocol of Awerbuch, Blum, Chor, Goldwasser, and Micali [Manuscript '85]. Our main result is a tighter lower bound on the bias of coin-flip** protocols, showing that, for every constant $ε>0$, an $r^ε$-party $r$-round coin-flip** protocol can be efficiently biased by $\widetildeΩ(1/\sqrt{r})$. As far as we know, this is the first improvement of Cleve's bound, and is only $n=r^ε$ (multiplicative) far from the aforementioned upper bound of Awerbuch et al. △ Less

Submitted 3 May, 2021; originally announced May 2021.

Comments: A preliminary version appeared in FOCS 18

On the Round Complexity of the Shuffle Model

Authors: Amos Beimel, Iftach Haitner, Kobbi Nissim, Uri Stemmer

Abstract: The shuffle model of differential privacy was proposed as a viable model for performing distributed differentially private computations. Informally, the model consists of an untrusted analyzer that receives messages sent by participating parties via a shuffle functionality, the latter potentially disassociates messages from their senders. Prior work focused on one-round differentially private shuf… ▽ More The shuffle model of differential privacy was proposed as a viable model for performing distributed differentially private computations. Informally, the model consists of an untrusted analyzer that receives messages sent by participating parties via a shuffle functionality, the latter potentially disassociates messages from their senders. Prior work focused on one-round differentially private shuffle model protocols, demonstrating that functionalities such as addition and histograms can be performed in this model with accuracy levels similar to that of the curator model of differential privacy, where the computation is performed by a fully trusted party. Focusing on the round complexity of the shuffle model, we ask in this work what can be computed in the shuffle model of differential privacy with two rounds. Ishai et al. [FOCS 2006] showed how to use one round of the shuffle to establish secret keys between every two parties. Using this primitive to simulate a general secure multi-party protocol increases its round complexity by one. We show how two parties can use one round of the shuffle to send secret messages without having to first establish a secret key, hence retaining round complexity. Combining this primitive with the two-round semi-honest protocol of Applebaun et al. [TCC 2018], we obtain that every randomized functionality can be computed in the shuffle model with an honest majority, in merely two rounds. This includes any differentially private computation. We then move to examine differentially private computations in the shuffle model that (i) do not require the assumption of an honest majority, or (ii) do not admit one-round protocols, even with an honest majority. For that, we introduce two computational tasks: the common-element problem and the nested-common-element problem, for which we show separations between one-round and two-round protocols. △ Less

Submitted 28 September, 2020; originally announced September 2020.

Closure Properties for Private Classification and Online Prediction

Authors: Noga Alon, Amos Beimel, Shay Moran, Uri Stemmer

Abstract: Let~$\cH$ be a class of boolean functions and consider a {\it composed class} $\cH'$ that is derived from~$\cH$ using some arbitrary aggregation rule (for example, $\cH'$ may be the class of all 3-wise majority-votes of functions in $\cH$). We upper bound the Littlestone dimension of~$\cH'$ in terms of that of~$\cH$. As a corollary, we derive closure properties for online learning and private PAC… ▽ More Let~$\cH$ be a class of boolean functions and consider a {\it composed class} $\cH'$ that is derived from~$\cH$ using some arbitrary aggregation rule (for example, $\cH'$ may be the class of all 3-wise majority-votes of functions in $\cH$). We upper bound the Littlestone dimension of~$\cH'$ in terms of that of~$\cH$. As a corollary, we derive closure properties for online learning and private PAC learning. The derived bounds on the Littlestone dimension exhibit an undesirable exponential dependence. For private learning, we prove close to optimal bounds that circumvents this suboptimal dependency. The improved bounds on the sample complexity of private learning are derived algorithmically via transforming a private learner for the original class $\cH$ to a private learner for the composed class~$\cH'$. Using the same ideas we show that any ({\em proper or improper}) private algorithm that learns a class of functions $\cH$ in the realizable case (i.e., when the examples are labeled by some function in the class) can be transformed to a private algorithm that learns the class $\cH$ in the agnostic case. △ Less

Submitted 12 May, 2020; v1 submitted 9 March, 2020; originally announced March 2020.

Comments: Improved some of the upper bounds w.r.t the Littlestone dimension. Most significantly, we removed two exponents from the bound w.r.t general composition (now it has a single exponent rather than triple exponents). Add a figure. Other

The power of synergy in differential privacy: Combining a small curator with local randomizers

Authors: Amos Beimel, Aleksandra Korolova, Kobbi Nissim, Or Sheffet, Uri Stemmer

Abstract: Motivated by the desire to bridge the utility gap between local and trusted curator models of differential privacy for practical applications, we initiate the theoretical study of a hybrid model introduced by "Blender" [Avent et al.,\ USENIX Security '17], in which differentially private protocols of n agents that work in the local-model are assisted by a differentially private curator that has ac… ▽ More Motivated by the desire to bridge the utility gap between local and trusted curator models of differential privacy for practical applications, we initiate the theoretical study of a hybrid model introduced by "Blender" [Avent et al.,\ USENIX Security '17], in which differentially private protocols of n agents that work in the local-model are assisted by a differentially private curator that has access to the data of m additional users. We focus on the regime where m << n and study the new capabilities of this (m,n)-hybrid model. We show that, despite the fact that the hybrid model adds no significant new capabilities for the basic task of simple hypothesis-testing, there are many other tasks (under a wide range of parameters) that can be solved in the hybrid model yet cannot be solved either by the curator or by the local-users separately. Moreover, we exhibit additional tasks where at least one round of interaction between the curator and the local-users is necessary -- namely, no hybrid model protocol without such interaction can solve these tasks. Taken together, our results show that the combination of the local model with a small curator can become part of a promising toolkit for designing and implementing differential privacy. △ Less

Submitted 20 December, 2019; v1 submitted 18 December, 2019; originally announced December 2019.

Exploring Differential Obliviousness

Authors: Amos Beimel, Kobbi Nissim, Mohammad Zaheri

Abstract: In a recent paper Chan et al. [SODA '19] proposed a relaxation of the notion of (full) memory obliviousness, which was introduced by Goldreich and Ostrovsky [J. ACM '96] and extensively researched by cryptographers. The new notion, differential obliviousness, requires that any two neighboring inputs exhibit similar memory access patterns, where the similarity requirement is that of differential pr… ▽ More In a recent paper Chan et al. [SODA '19] proposed a relaxation of the notion of (full) memory obliviousness, which was introduced by Goldreich and Ostrovsky [J. ACM '96] and extensively researched by cryptographers. The new notion, differential obliviousness, requires that any two neighboring inputs exhibit similar memory access patterns, where the similarity requirement is that of differential privacy. Chan et al. demonstrated that differential obliviousness allows achieving improved efficiency for several algorithmic tasks, including sorting, merging of sorted lists, and range query data structures. In this work, we continue the exploration and map** of differential obliviousness, focusing on algorithms that do not necessarily examine all their input. This choice is motivated by the fact that the existence of logarithmic overhead ORAM protocols implies that differential obliviousness can yield at most a logarithmic improvement in efficiency for computations that need to examine all their input. In particular, we explore property testing, where we show that differential obliviousness yields an almost linear improvement in overhead in the dense graph model, and at most quadratic improvement in the bounded degree model. We also explore tasks where a non-oblivious algorithm would need to explore different portions of the input, where the latter would depend on the input itself, and where we show that such a behavior can be maintained under differential obliviousness, but not under full obliviousness. Our examples suggest that there would be benefits in further exploring which class of computational tasks are amenable to differential obliviousness. △ Less

Submitted 2 October, 2019; v1 submitted 3 May, 2019; originally announced May 2019.

Private Center Points and Learning of Halfspaces

Authors: Amos Beimel, Shay Moran, Kobbi Nissim, Uri Stemmer

Abstract: We present a private learner for halfspaces over an arbitrary finite domain $X\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ with sample complexity $mathrm{poly}(d,2^{\log^*|X|})$. The building block for this learner is a differentially private algorithm for locating an approximate center point of $m>\mathrm{poly}(d,2^{\log^*|X|})$ points -- a high dimensional generalization of the median function. Our construction establ… ▽ More We present a private learner for halfspaces over an arbitrary finite domain $X\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ with sample complexity $mathrm{poly}(d,2^{\log^*|X|})$. The building block for this learner is a differentially private algorithm for locating an approximate center point of $m>\mathrm{poly}(d,2^{\log^*|X|})$ points -- a high dimensional generalization of the median function. Our construction establishes a relationship between these two problems that is reminiscent of the relation between the median and learning one-dimensional thresholds [Bun et al.\ FOCS '15]. This relationship suggests that the problem of privately locating a center point may have further applications in the design of differentially private algorithms. We also provide a lower bound on the sample complexity for privately finding a point in the convex hull. For approximate differential privacy, we show a lower bound of $m=Ω(d+\log^*|X|)$, whereas for pure differential privacy $m=Ω(d\log|X|)$. △ Less

Submitted 27 February, 2019; originally announced February 2019.

Comments: 14 pages

Privacy Preserving Multi-Agent Planning with Provable Guarantees

Authors: Amos Beimel, Ronen I. Brafman

Abstract: In privacy-preserving multi-agent planning, a group of agents attempt to cooperatively solve a multi-agent planning problem while maintaining private their data and actions. Although much work was carried out in this area in past years, its theoretical foundations have not been fully worked out. Specifically, although algorithms with precise privacy guarantees exist, even their most efficient impl… ▽ More In privacy-preserving multi-agent planning, a group of agents attempt to cooperatively solve a multi-agent planning problem while maintaining private their data and actions. Although much work was carried out in this area in past years, its theoretical foundations have not been fully worked out. Specifically, although algorithms with precise privacy guarantees exist, even their most efficient implementations are not fast enough on realistic instances, whereas for practical algorithms no meaningful privacy guarantees exist. Secure-MAFS, a variant of the multi-agent forward search algorithm (MAFS) is the only practical algorithm to attempt to offer more precise guarantees, but only in very limited settings and with proof sketches only. In this paper we formulate a precise notion of secure computation for search-based algorithms and prove that Secure MAFS has this property in all domains. △ Less

Submitted 1 November, 2018; v1 submitted 31 October, 2018; originally announced October 2018.

Private Learning and Sanitization: Pure vs. Approximate Differential Privacy

Authors: Amos Beimel, Kobbi Nissim, Uri Stemmer

Abstract: We compare the sample complexity of private learning [Kasiviswanathan et al. 2008] and sanitization~[Blum et al. 2008] under pure $ε$-differential privacy [Dwork et al. TCC 2006] and approximate $(ε,δ)$-differential privacy [Dwork et al. Eurocrypt 2006]. We show that the sample complexity of these tasks under approximate differential privacy can be significantly lower than that under pure differen… ▽ More We compare the sample complexity of private learning [Kasiviswanathan et al. 2008] and sanitization~[Blum et al. 2008] under pure $ε$-differential privacy [Dwork et al. TCC 2006] and approximate $(ε,δ)$-differential privacy [Dwork et al. Eurocrypt 2006]. We show that the sample complexity of these tasks under approximate differential privacy can be significantly lower than that under pure differential privacy. We define a family of optimization problems, which we call Quasi-Concave Promise Problems, that generalizes some of our considered tasks. We observe that a quasi-concave promise problem can be privately approximated using a solution to a smaller instance of a quasi-concave promise problem. This allows us to construct an efficient recursive algorithm solving such problems privately. Specifically, we construct private learners for point functions, threshold functions, and axis-aligned rectangles in high dimension. Similarly, we construct sanitizers for point functions and threshold functions. We also examine the sample complexity of label-private learners, a relaxation of private learning where the learner is required to only protect the privacy of the labels in the sample. We show that the VC dimension completely characterizes the sample complexity of such learners, that is, the sample complexity of learning with label privacy is equal (up to constants) to learning without privacy. △ Less

Submitted 9 July, 2014; originally announced July 2014.

Learning Privately with Labeled and Unlabeled Examples

Authors: Amos Beimel, Kobbi Nissim, Uri Stemmer

Abstract: A private learner is an algorithm that given a sample of labeled individual examples outputs a generalizing hypothesis while preserving the privacy of each individual. In 2008, Kasiviswanathan et al. (FOCS 2008) gave a generic construction of private learners, in which the sample complexity is (generally) higher than what is needed for non-private learners. This gap in the sample complexity was th… ▽ More A private learner is an algorithm that given a sample of labeled individual examples outputs a generalizing hypothesis while preserving the privacy of each individual. In 2008, Kasiviswanathan et al. (FOCS 2008) gave a generic construction of private learners, in which the sample complexity is (generally) higher than what is needed for non-private learners. This gap in the sample complexity was then further studied in several followup papers, showing that (at least in some cases) this gap is unavoidable. Moreover, those papers considered ways to overcome the gap, by relaxing either the privacy or the learning guarantees of the learner. We suggest an alternative approach, inspired by the (non-private) models of semi-supervised learning and active-learning, where the focus is on the sample complexity of labeled examples whereas unlabeled examples are of a significantly lower cost. We consider private semi-supervised learners that operate on a random sample, where only a (hopefully small) portion of this sample is labeled. The learners have no control over which of the sample elements are labeled. Our main result is that the labeled sample complexity of private learners is characterized by the VC dimension. We present two generic constructions of private semi-supervised learners. The first construction is of learners where the labeled sample complexity is proportional to the VC dimension of the concept class, however, the unlabeled sample complexity of the algorithm is as big as the representation length of domain elements. Our second construction presents a new technique for decreasing the labeled sample complexity of a given private learner, while roughly maintaining its unlabeled sample complexity. In addition, we show that in some settings the labeled sample complexity does not depend on the privacy parameters of the learner. △ Less

Submitted 1 July, 2015; v1 submitted 9 July, 2014; originally announced July 2014.

Characterizing the Sample Complexity of Private Learners

Authors: Amos Beimel, Kobbi Nissim, Uri Stemmer

Abstract: In 2008, Kasiviswanathan et al. defined private learning as a combination of PAC learning and differential privacy. Informally, a private learner is applied to a collection of labeled individual information and outputs a hypothesis while preserving the privacy of each individual. Kasiviswanathan et al. gave a generic construction of private learners for (finite) concept classes, with sample comple… ▽ More In 2008, Kasiviswanathan et al. defined private learning as a combination of PAC learning and differential privacy. Informally, a private learner is applied to a collection of labeled individual information and outputs a hypothesis while preserving the privacy of each individual. Kasiviswanathan et al. gave a generic construction of private learners for (finite) concept classes, with sample complexity logarithmic in the size of the concept class. This sample complexity is higher than what is needed for non-private learners, hence leaving open the possibility that the sample complexity of private learning may be sometimes significantly higher than that of non-private learning. We give a combinatorial characterization of the sample size sufficient and necessary to privately learn a class of concepts. This characterization is analogous to the well known characterization of the sample complexity of non-private learning in terms of the VC dimension of the concept class. We introduce the notion of probabilistic representation of a concept class, and our new complexity measure RepDim corresponds to the size of the smallest probabilistic representation of the concept class. We show that any private learning algorithm for a concept class C with sample complexity m implies RepDim(C)=O(m), and that there exists a private learning algorithm with sample complexity m=O(RepDim(C)). We further demonstrate that a similar characterization holds for the database size needed for privately computing a large class of optimization problems and also for the well studied problem of private data release. △ Less

Submitted 10 February, 2014; originally announced February 2014.

Distributed Private Data Analysis: On Simultaneously Solving How and What

Authors: Amos Beimel, Kobbi Nissim, Eran Omri

Abstract: We examine the combination of two directions in the field of privacy concerning computations over distributed private inputs - secure function evaluation (SFE) and differential privacy. While in both the goal is to privately evaluate some function of the individual inputs, the privacy requirements are significantly different. The general feasibility results for SFE suggest a natural paradigm for i… ▽ More We examine the combination of two directions in the field of privacy concerning computations over distributed private inputs - secure function evaluation (SFE) and differential privacy. While in both the goal is to privately evaluate some function of the individual inputs, the privacy requirements are significantly different. The general feasibility results for SFE suggest a natural paradigm for implementing differentially private analyses distributively: First choose what to compute, i.e., a differentially private analysis; Then decide how to compute it, i.e., construct an SFE protocol for this analysis. We initiate an examination whether there are advantages to a paradigm where both decisions are made simultaneously. In particular, we investigate under which accuracy requirements it is beneficial to adapt this paradigm for computing a collection of functions including binary sum, gap threshold, and approximate median queries. Our results imply that when computing the binary sum of $n$ distributed inputs then: * When we require that the error is $o(\sqrt{n})$ and the number of rounds is constant, there is no benefit in the new paradigm. * When we allow an error of $O(\sqrt{n})$, the new paradigm yields more efficient protocols when we consider protocols that compute symmetric functions. Our results also yield new separations between the local and global models of computations for private data analysis. △ Less

Submitted 14 March, 2011; originally announced March 2011.

Secure Multiparty Computation with Partial Fairness

Authors: Amos Beimel, Eran Omri, Ilan Orlov

Abstract: A protocol for computing a functionality is secure if an adversary in this protocol cannot cause more harm than in an ideal computation where parties give their inputs to a trusted party which returns the output of the functionality to all parties. In particular, in the ideal model such computation is fair -- all parties get the output. Cleve (STOC 1986) proved that, in general, fairness is not po… ▽ More A protocol for computing a functionality is secure if an adversary in this protocol cannot cause more harm than in an ideal computation where parties give their inputs to a trusted party which returns the output of the functionality to all parties. In particular, in the ideal model such computation is fair -- all parties get the output. Cleve (STOC 1986) proved that, in general, fairness is not possible without an honest majority. To overcome this impossibility, Gordon and Katz (Eurocrypt 2010) suggested a relaxed definition -- 1/p-secure computation -- which guarantees partial fairness. For two parties, they construct 1/p-secure protocols for functionalities for which the size of either their domain or their range is polynomial (in the security parameter). Gordon and Katz ask whether their results can be extended to multiparty protocols. We study 1/p-secure protocols in the multiparty setting for general functionalities. Our main result is constructions of 1/p-secure protocols when the number of parties is constant provided that less than 2/3 of the parties are corrupt. Our protocols require that either (1) the functionality is deterministic and the size of the domain is polynomial (in the security parameter), or (2) the functionality can be randomized and the size of the range is polynomial. If the size of the domain is constant and the functionality is deterministic, then our protocol is efficient even when the number of parties is O(log log n) (where n is the security parameter). On the negative side, we show that when the number of parties is super-constant, 1/p-secure protocols are not possible when the size of the domain is polynomial. △ Less

Submitted 25 November, 2010; originally announced November 2010.