tv distance
Integrating Feature Correlation in Differential Privacy with Applications in DP-ERM
Wang, Tianyu, Zhang, Luhao, Cummings, Rachel
Standard differential privacy imposes uniform privacy constraints across all features, overlooking the inherent distinction between sensitive and insensitive features in practice. In this paper, we introduce a relaxed definition of differential privacy that accounts for such heterogeneity, allowing certain features to be treated as insensitive even when correlated with sensitive ones. We propose a correlation-aware framework, $\textsf{CorrDP}$, which relaxes privacy for insensitive features while accounting for their correlations with sensitive features, with the correlations quantified using total variation distance. We design algorithms for differentially private empirical risk minimization (DP-ERM) under the $\textsf{CorrDP}$ framework, incorporating distance-dependent noise into gradients for improved theoretical utility guarantees. When the correlation distance is unknown, we estimate it from the dataset and show that it achieves a comparable privacy-utility guarantee. We perform experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets and show that $\textsf{CorrDP}$-based DP-ERM algorithms consistently outperform the standard DP framework in the presence of insensitive features.
Stable GFlowNets with Probabilistic Guarantees
Lei, Zengxiang, Shreekumar, Ananth, Rosenthal, Jonathan, Song, Ruoyu, Cardenas, Alvaro A., Fremont, Daniel J., Xu, Dongyan, Ukkusuri, Satish, Celik, Z. Berkay
Generative Flow Networks (GFlowNets) learn to sample states proportional to an unnormalized reward. Despite their theoretical promise, practical training is often unstable, exhibiting severe loss spikes and mode collapse. To tackle this, we first assess the sensitivity of GFlowNet objectives, demonstrating that a small Total Variation (TV) distance between the learned and target distributions does not preclude unbounded training loss. Motivated by this mismatch, we establish converse guarantees by deriving loss-to-TV bounds that certify global fidelity from bounded trajectory balance losses. Lastly, we propose Stable GFlowNets, an algorithm that leverages our theoretical results to stabilize training, and empirically demonstrate improved training behavior and superior distributional fidelity.
On the Robustness of Mechanism Design under Total Variation Distance
We study the problem of designing mechanisms when agents' valuation functions are drawn from unknown and correlated prior distributions. In particular, we are given a prior distribution D, and we are interested in designing a (truthful) mechanism that has good performance for all "true distributions" that are close to Din Total Variation (TV) distance. We show that DSIC and BIC mechanisms in this setting are strongly robust with respect to TV distance, for any bounded objective function O, extending a recent result of Brustle et al. ([BCD20], EC 2020). At the heart of our result is a fundamental duality property of total variation distance. As direct applications of our result, we (i) demonstrate how to find approximately revenue-optimal and approximately BIC mechanisms for weakly dependent prior distributions; (ii) show how to find correlation-robust mechanisms when only "noisy" versions of marginals are accessible, extending recent results of Bei et.
DisCEdit: Model Editing by Identifying Discriminative Components
Model editing is a growing area of research that is particularly valuable in contexts where modifying key model components, like neurons or filters, can significantly impact the model's performance. The key challenge lies in identifying important components useful to the model's predictions. We apply model editing to address two active areas of research, Structured Pruning, and Selective Class Forgetting. In this work, we adopt a distributional approach to the problem of identifying important components, leveraging the recently proposed discriminative filters hypothesis, which states that well-trained (convolutional) models possess discriminative filters that are essential to prediction. To do so, we define discriminative ability in terms of the Bayes error rate associated with the feature distributions, which is equivalent to computing the Total Variation (TV) distance between the distributions. However, computing the TV distance is intractable, motivating us to derive novel witness function-based lower bounds on the TV distance that require no assumptions on the underlying distributions; using this bound generalizes prior work such as Murti et al. [39] that relied on unrealistic Gaussianity assumptions on the feature distributions. With these bounds, we are able to discover critical subnetworks responsible for classwise predictions, and derive DISCEDIT-SP and DISCEDIT-U, algorithms for structured pruning requiring no access to the training data and loss function, and selective forgetting respectively. We apply DISCEDIT-U to selective class forgetting on models trained on CIFAR10 and CIFAR100, and we show that on average, we can reduce accuracy on a single class by over 80% with a minimal reduction in test accuracy on the remaining classes. Similarly, on Structured pruning problems, we obtain 40.8% sparsity on ResNet50 on Imagenet, with only a 2.6% drop in accuracy with minimal fine-tuning.
A Proofs of Linear Case Throughout the appendix, for ease of notation, we overload the definition of the function d
The proof of this lemma requires Lemma A.1, which characterizes the distribution of the residual By Pinsker's inequality, this implies d By Lemma A.1, we have E[ X ( null w w The proof is inspired by Theorem 11.2 in [20], with modifications to our setting. First, we construct a "ghost" dataset The most challenging aspect of the ReLU setting is that we do not have an expression for the TV suffered by the MLE, such as Lemma 4.2 in the linear case. The proof of this Lemma, as well as other Lemmas in this section, can be found in Appendix B.1. Using Lemma B.2 and Lemma B.3, we can form a uniform bound, such that all A straight forward combination of Lemma 4.3 and Lemma B.4 gives the following Theorem. Now we can apply Bernstein's inequality (Theorem 2.10 of [8]).