user: text: Write a concise one-sentence TLDR summary of the scientific paper content below.

Title: Learning Differentially Private Recurrent Language Models

Paper content:
We demonstrate that it is possible to train large recurrent language models with user-level differential privacy guarantees with only a negligible cost in predictive accuracy.
Our work builds on recent advances in the training of deep networks on user-partitioned data and privacy accounting for stochastic gradient descent.
In particular, we add user-level privacy protection to the federated averaging algorithm, which makes large step updates from user-level data.
Our work demonstrates that given a dataset with a sufficiently large number of users (a requirement easily met by even small internet-scale datasets), achieving differential privacy comes at the cost of increased computation, rather than in decreased utility as in most prior work.
We find that our private LSTM language models are quantitatively and qualitatively similar to un-noised models when trained on a large dataset.
Deep recurrent models like long short-term memory (LSTM) recurrent neural networks (RNNs) have become a standard building block in modern approaches to language modeling, with applications in speech recognition, input decoding for mobile keyboards, and language translation.
Because language usage varies widely by problem domain and dataset, training a language model on data from the right distribution is critical.
For example, a model to aid typing on a mobile keyboard is better served by training data typed in mobile apps rather than from scanned books or transcribed utterances.
However, language data can be uniquely privacy sensitive.
In the case of text typed on a mobile phone, this sensitive information might include passwords, text messages, and search queries.
In general, language data may identify a speaker-explicitly by name or implicitly, for example via a rare or unique phrase-and link that speaker to secret or sensitive information.Ideally, a language model's parameters would encode patterns of language use common to many users without memorizing any individual user's unique input sequences.
However, we know convolutional NNs can memorize arbitrary labelings of the training data BID22 and recurrent language models are also capable of memorizing unique patterns in the training data BID5 .
Recent attacks on neural networks such as those of BID19 underscore the implicit risk.
The main goal of our work is to provide a strong guarantee that the trained model protects the privacy of individuals' data without undue sacrifice in model quality.We are motivated by the problem of training models for next-word prediction in a mobile keyboard, and use this as a running example.
This problem is well suited to the techniques we introduce, as differential privacy may allow for training on data from the true distribution (actual mobile usage) rather than on proxy data from some other source that would produce inferior models.
However, to facilitate reproducibility and comparison to non-private models, our experiments are conducted on a public dataset as is standard in differential privacy research.
The remainder of this paper is structured around the following contributions:1.
We apply differential privacy to model training using the notion of user-adjacent datasets, leading to formal guarantees of user-level privacy, rather than privacy for single examples.4.
In extensive experiments in §3, we offer guidelines for parameter tuning when training complex models with differential privacy guarantees.
We show that a small number of experiments can narrow the parameter space into a regime where we pay for privacy not in terms of a loss in utility but in terms of an increased computational cost.We now introduce a few preliminaries.
Differential privacy (DP) BID10 BID8 BID9 ) provides a well-tested formalization for the release of information derived from private data.
Applied to machine learning, a differentially private training mechanism allows the public release of model parameters with a strong guarantee: adversaries are severely limited in what they can learn about the original training data based on analyzing the parameters, even when they have access to arbitrary side information.
Formally, it says: Definition
1. Differential Privacy: A randomized mechanism M : D → R with a domain D (e.g., possible training datasets) and range R (e.g., all possible trained models) satisfies ( , δ)-differential privacy if for any two adjacent datasets d, d ∈ D and for any subset of outputs S ⊆ R it holds that DISPLAYFORM0 The definition above leaves open the definition of adjacent datasets which will depend on the application.
Most prior work on differentially private machine learning (e.g. BID7 BID4 ; BID0 BID21 BID16 ) deals with example-level privacy: two datasets d and d are defined to be adjacent if d can be formed by adding or removing a single training example from d.
We remark that while the recent PATE approach of BID16 can be adapted to give user-level privacy, it is not suited for a language model where the number of classes (possible output words) is large.For problems like language modeling, protecting individual examples is insufficient-each typed word makes its own contribution to the RNN's training objective, so one user may contribute many thousands of examples to the training data.
A sensitive word or phrase may be typed several times by an individual user, but it should still be protected.2
In this work, we therefore apply the definition of differential privacy to protect whole user histories in the training set.
This user-level privacy is ensured by using an appropriate adjacency relation:Definition
2. User-adjacent datasets: Let d and d be two datasets of training examples, where each example is associated with a user.
Then, d and d are adjacent if d can be formed by adding or removing all of the examples associated with a single user from d.Model training that satisfies differential privacy with respect to datasets that are user-adjacent satisfies the intuitive notion of privacy we aim to protect for language modeling: the presence or absence of any specific user's data in the training set has an imperceptible impact on the (distribution over) the parameters of the learned model.
It follows that an adversary looking at the trained model cannot infer whether any specific user's data was used in the training, irrespective of what auxiliary information they may have.
In particular, differential privacy rules out memorization of sensitive information in a strong information theoretic sense.
In this work, we introduced an algorithm for user-level differentially private training of large neural networks, in particular a complex sequence model for next-word prediction.
We empirically evaluated the algorithm on a realistic dataset and demonstrated that such training is possible at a negligible loss in utility, instead paying a cost in additional computation.
Such private training, combined with federated learning (which leaves the sensitive training data on device rather than centralizing it), shows the possibility of training models with significant privacy guarantees for important real world applications.
Much future work remains, for example designing private algorithms that automate and make adaptive the tuning of the clipping/noise tradeoff, and the application to a wider range of model families and architectures, for example GRUs and character-level models.
Our work also highlights the open direction of reducing the computational overhead of differentially private training of non-convex models.

assistant: text: User-level differential privacy for recurrent neural network language models is possible with a sufficiently large dataset.