Federated Learning (FL) is a machine learning technique that enables multiple entities to collaboratively learn a shared model without exchanging their local data. Over the past decade, FL systems have achieved substantial progress, scaling to millions of devices across various learning domains while offering meaningful differential privacy (DP) guarantees. Production systems from organizations like Google, Apple, and Meta demonstrate the real-world applicability of FL. However, key challenges remain, including verifying server-side DP guarantees and coordinating training across heterogeneous devices, limiting broader adoption. Additionally, emerging trends such as large (multi-modal) models and blurred lines between training, inference, and personalization challenge traditional FL frameworks. In response, we propose a redefined FL framework that prioritizes privacy principles rather than rigid definitions. We also chart a path forward by leveraging trusted execution environments and open-source ecosystems to address these challenges and facilitate future advancements in FL.

We investigate practical and scalable algorithms for training large language models (LLMs) with user-level differential privacy (DP) in order to provably safeguard all the examples contributed by each user. We study two variants of DP-SGD with: (1) example-level sampling (ELS) and per-example gradient clipping, and (2) user-level sampling (ULS) and per-user gradient clipping. We derive a novel user-level DP accountant that allows us to compute provably tight privacy guarantees for ELS. Using this, we show that while ELS can outperform ULS in specific settings, ULS generally yields better results when each user has a diverse collection of examples. We validate our findings through experiments in synthetic mean estimation and LLM fine-tuning tasks under fixed compute budgets. We find that ULS is significantly better in settings where either (1) strong privacy guarantees are required, or (2) the compute budget is large. Notably, our focus on LLM-compatible training algorithms allows us to scale to models with hundreds of millions of parameters and datasets with hundreds of thousands of users.

In the task of differentially private (DP) continual counting, we receive a stream of increments and our goal is to output an approximate running total of these increments, without revealing too much about any specific increment. Despite its simplicity, differentially private continual counting has attracted significant attention both in theory and in practice. Existing algorithms for differentially private continual counting are either inefficient in terms of their space usage or add an excessive amount of noise, inducing suboptimal utility. The most practical DP continual counting algorithms add carefully correlated Gaussian noise to the values. The task of choosing the covariance for this noise can be expressed in terms of factoring the lower-triangular matrix of ones (which computes prefix sums). We present two approaches from this class (for different parameter regimes) that achieve near-optimal utility for DP continual counting and only require logarithmic or polylogarithmic space (and time). Our first approach is based on a space-efficient streaming matrix multiplication algorithm for a class of Toeplitz matrices. We show that to instantiate this algorithm for DP continual counting, it is sufficient to find a low-degree rational function that approximates the square root on a circle in the complex plane. We then apply and extend tools from approximation theory to achieve this. We also derive efficient closed-forms for the objective function for arbitrarily many steps, and show direct numerical optimization yields a highly practical solution to the problem. Our second approach combines our first approach with a recursive construction similar to the binary tree mechanism.

Matrix factorization (MF) mechanisms for differential privacy (DP) have substantially improved the state-of-the-art in privacy-utility-computation tradeoffs for ML applications in a variety of scenarios, but in both the centralized and federated settings there remain instances where either MF cannot be easily applied, or other algorithms provide better tradeoffs (typically, as $\epsilon$ becomes small). In this work, we show how MF can subsume prior state-of-the-art algorithms in both federated and centralized training settings, across all privacy budgets. The key technique throughout is the construction of MF mechanisms with banded matrices (lower-triangular matrices with at most $\hat{b}$ nonzero bands including the main diagonal). For cross-device federated learning (FL), this enables multiple-participations with a relaxed device participation schema compatible with practical FL infrastructure (as demonstrated by a production deployment). In the centralized setting, we prove that banded matrices enjoy the same privacy amplification results as the ubiquitous DP-SGD algorithm, but can provide strictly better performance in most scenarios -- this lets us always at least match DP-SGD, and often outperform it.

Privacy estimation techniques for differentially private (DP) algorithms are useful for comparing against analytical bounds, or to empirically measure privacy loss in settings where known analytical bounds are not tight. However, existing privacy auditing techniques usually make strong assumptions on the adversary (e.g., knowledge of intermediate model iterates or the training data distribution), are tailored to specific tasks, model architectures, or DP algorithm, and/or require retraining the model many times (typically on the order of thousands). These shortcomings make deploying such techniques at scale difficult in practice, especially in federated settings where model training can take days or weeks. In this work, we present a novel ``one-shot'' approach that can systematically address these challenges, allowing efficient auditing or estimation of the privacy loss of a model during the same, single training run used to fit model parameters, and without requiring any a priori knowledge about the model architecture, task, or DP training algorithm. We show that our method provides provably correct estimates for the privacy loss under the Gaussian mechanism, and we demonstrate its performance on well-established FL benchmark datasets under several adversarial threat models.

ML models are ubiquitous in real world applications and are a constant focus of research. At the same time, the community has started to realize the importance of protecting the privacy of ML training data. Differential Privacy (DP) has become a gold standard for making formal statements about data anonymization. However, while some adoption of DP has happened in industry, attempts to apply DP to real world complex ML models are still few and far between. The adoption of DP is hindered by limited practical guidance of what DP protection entails, what privacy guarantees to aim for, and the difficulty of achieving good privacy-utility-computation trade-offs for ML models. Tricks for tuning and maximizing performance are scattered among papers or stored in the heads of practitioners. Furthermore, the literature seems to present conflicting evidence on how and whether to apply architectural adjustments and which components are "safe" to use with DP. This work is a self-contained guide that gives an in-depth overview of the field of DP ML and presents information about achieving the best possible DP ML model with rigorous privacy guarantees. Our target audience is both researchers and practitioners. Researchers interested in DP for ML will benefit from a clear overview of current advances and areas for improvement. We include theory-focused sections that highlight important topics such as privacy accounting and its assumptions, and convergence. For a practitioner, we provide a background in DP theory and a clear step-by-step guide for choosing an appropriate privacy definition and approach, implementing DP training, potentially updating the model architecture, and tuning hyperparameters. For both researchers and practitioners, consistently and fully reporting privacy guarantees is critical, and so we propose a set of specific best practices for stating guarantees.

Machine Learning (ML) models are ubiquitous in real-world applications and are a constant focus of research. Modern ML models have become more complex, deeper, and harder to reason about. At the same time, the community has started to realize the importance of protecting the privacy of the training data that goes into these models. Differential Privacy (DP) has become a gold standard for making formal statements about data anonymization. However, while some adoption of DP has happened in industry, attempts to apply DP to real world complex ML models are still few and far between. The adoption of DP is hindered by limited practical guidance of what DP protection entails, what privacy guarantees to aim for, and the difficulty of achieving good privacy-utility-computation trade-offs for ML models. Tricks for tuning and maximizing performance are scattered among papers or stored in the heads of practitioners, particularly with respect to the challenging task of hyperparameter tuning. Furthermore, the literature seems to present conflicting evidence on how and whether to apply architectural adjustments and which components are “safe” to use with DP. In this survey paper, we attempt to create a self-contained guide that gives an in-depth overview of the field of DP ML. We aim to assemble information about achieving the best possible DP ML model with rigorous privacy guarantees. Our target audience is both researchers and practitioners. Researchers interested in DP for ML will benefit from a clear overview of current advances and areas for improvement. We also include theory-focused sections that highlight important topics such as privacy accounting and convergence. For a practitioner, this survey provides a background in DP theory and a clear step-by-step guide for choosing an appropriate privacy definition and approach, implementing DP training, potentially updating the model architecture, and tuning hyperparameters. For both researchers and practitioners, consistently and fully reporting privacy guarantees is critical, so we propose a set of specific best practices for stating guarantees. With sufficient computation and a sufficiently large training set or supplemental nonprivate data, both good accuracy (that is, almost as good as a non-private model) and good privacy can often be achievable. And even when computation and dataset size are limited, there are advantages to training with even a weak (but still finite) formal DP guarantee. Hence, we hope this work will facilitate more widespread deployments of DP ML models.

We train language models (LMs) with federated learning (FL) and differential privacy (DP) in the Google Keyboard (Gboard). We apply the DP-Follow-the-Regularized-Leader (DP-FTRL)~\citep{kairouz21b} algorithm to achieve meaningfully formal DP guarantees without requiring uniform sampling of client devices. To provide favorable privacy-utility trade-offs, we introduce a new client participation criterion and discuss the implication of its configuration in large scale systems. We show how quantile-based clip estimation~\citep{andrew2019differentially} can be combined with DP-FTRL to adaptively choose the clip norm during training or reduce the hyperparameter tuning in preparation for training. With the help of pretraining on public data, we train and deploy more than twenty Gboard LMs that achieve high utility and $\rho-$zCDP privacy guarantees with $\rho \in (0.2, 2)$, with two models additionally trained with secure aggregation~\citep{bonawitz2017practical}. We are happy to announce that all the next word prediction neural network LMs in Gboard now have DP guarantees, and all future launches of Gboard neural network LMs will require DP guarantees. We summarize our experience and provide concrete suggestions on DP training for practitioners.

We introduce new differentially private (DP) mechanisms for gradient-based machine learning (ML) with multiple passes (epochs) over a dataset, substantially improving the achievable privacy-utility-computation tradeoffs. We formalize the problem of DP mechanisms for adaptive streams with multiple participations and introduce a non-trivial extension of online matrix factorization DP mechanisms to our setting. This includes establishing the necessary theory for sensitivity calculations and efficient computation of optimal matrices. For some applications like $>\!\! 10,000$ SGD steps, applying these optimal techniques becomes computationally expensive. We thus design an efficient Fourier-transform-based mechanism with only a minor utility loss. Extensive empirical evaluation on both example-level DP for image classification and user-level DP for language modeling demonstrate substantial improvements over all previous methods, including the widely-used DP-SGD . Though our primary application is to ML, our main DP results are applicable to arbitrary linear queries and hence may have much broader applicability.

Privacy noise may negate the benefits of using adaptive optimizers in differentially private model training. Prior works typically address this issue by using auxiliary information (e.g., public data) to boost the effectiveness of adaptive optimization. In this work, we explore techniques to estimate and efficiently adapt to gradient geometry in private adaptive optimization without auxiliary data. Motivated by the observation that adaptive methods can tolerate stale preconditioners, we propose differentially private adaptive training with delayed preconditioners (DP^2), a simple method that constructs delayed but less noisy preconditioners to better realize the benefits of adaptivity. Theoretically, we provide convergence guarantees for our method for both convex and non-convex problems, and analyze trade-offs between delay and privacy noise reduction. Empirically, we explore DP^2 across several real-world datasets, demonstrating that it can improve convergence speed by as much as 4x relative to non-adaptive baselines and match the performance of state-of-the-art optimization methods that require auxiliary data.