We investigate the direct-sum problem in the context of differentially private PAC learning: What is the sample complexity of solving k learning tasks simultaneously under differential privacy, and how does this cost compare to that of solving k learning tasks without privacy? In our setting, an individual example consists of a domain element x labeled by k unknown concepts (c1,...,ck). The goal of a multi-learner is to output k hypotheses (h1,...,hk) that generalize the input examples. Without concern for privacy, the sample complexity needed to simultaneously learn @math concepts is essentially the same as needed for learning a single concept. Under differential privacy, the basic strategy of learning each hypothesis independently yields sample complexity that grows polynomially with k. For some concept classes, we give multi-learners that require fewer samples than the basic strategy. Unfortunately, however, we also give lower bounds showing that even for very simple concept classes, the sample cost of private multi-learning must grow polynomially in k.
Differential privacy was defined in @cite_1 and the relaxation to approximate differential privacy is from @cite_18 . Most related to our work is the work on private learning and its sample complexity @cite_38 @cite_3 @cite_4 @cite_0 @cite_42 @cite_26 @cite_24 @cite_8 @cite_17 @cite_39 and the early work on sanitization @cite_32 . That many natural'' learning tasks can be performed privately was shown in the early work of @cite_38 and @cite_3 . A characterization for the sample complexity of pure-private learners was given in @cite_26 , in terms of a new combinatorial measure -- the Representation Dimension , that is, given a class @math , the number of samples needed and sufficient for privately learning @math is @math . Building on @cite_26 , Feldman and Xiao @cite_8 showed an equivalence between the representation dimension of a concept @math and the randomized one-way communication complexity of the evaluation problem for concepts from @math . Using this equivalence they separated the sample complexity of pure-private learners from that of non-private ones.
@cite_38 @cite_18 @cite_26 @cite_4 @cite_8 @cite_42 @cite_1 @cite_32 @cite_3 @cite_39 @cite_0 @cite_24 @cite_17
2010523825 2610910029 2096223017 1603362050 1616697096 1873763122 2042469398 2245160765 2171200367 2167372639 2949611647 2950522511
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to suggest an alternative to the widely used Times Cited criterion for analysing citation networks. The approach involves taking account of the natures of the papers that cite a given paper, so as to differentiate between papers that attract the same number of citations.Design methodology approach – ArticleRank is an algorithm that has been derived from Google's PageRank algorithm to measure the influence of journal articles. ArticleRank is applied to two datasets – a citation network based on an early paper on webometrics, and a self‐citation network based on the 19 most cited papers in the Journal of Documentation – using citation data taken from the Web of Knowledge database.Findings – ArticleRank values provide a different ranking of a set of papers from that provided by the corresponding Times Cited values, and overcomes the inability of the latter to differentiate between papers with the same numbers of citations. The difference in rankings between Times Cited ... A citing sentence is one that appears in a scientific article and cites previous work. Citing sentences have been studied and used in many applications. For example, they have been used in scientific paper summarization, automatic survey generation, paraphrase identification, and citation function classification. Citing sentences that cite multiple papers are common in scientific writing. This observation should be taken into consideration when using citing sentences in applications. For instance, when a citing sentence is used in a summary of a scientific paper, only the fragments of the sentence that are relevant to the summarized paper should be included in the summary. In this paper, we present and compare three different approaches for identifying the fragments of a citing sentence that are related to a given target reference. Our methods are: word classification, sequence labeling, and segment classification. Our experiments show that segment classification achieves the best results. In a document network such as a citation network of scientific documents, web-logs, etc., the content produced by authors exhibits their interest in certain topics. In addition some authors influence other authors' interests. In this work, we propose to model the influence of cited authors along with the interests of citing authors. Moreover, we hypothesize that apart from the citations present in documents, the context surrounding the citation mention provides extra topical information about the cited authors. However, associating terms in the context to the cited authors remains an open problem. We propose novel document generation schemes that incorporate the context while simultaneously modeling the interests of citing authors and influence of the cited authors. Our experiments show significant improvements over baseline models for various evaluation criteria such as link prediction between document and cited author, and quantitatively explaining unseen text. In this work we analyze the sample complexity of classification by differentially private algorithms. Differential privacy is a strong and well-studied notion of privacy introduced by (2006) that ensures that the output of an algorithm leaks little information about the data point provided by any of the participating individuals. Sample complexity of private PAC and agnostic learning was studied in a number of prior works starting with (, 2008) but a number of basic questions still remain open, most notably whether learning with privacy requires more samples than learning without privacy. We show that the sample complexity of learning with (pure) differential privacy can be arbitrarily higher than the sample complexity of learning without the privacy constraint or the sample complexity of learning with approximate differential privacy. Our second contribution and the main tool is an equivalence between the sample complexity of (pure) differentially private learning of a concept class @math (or @math ) and the randomized one-way communication complexity of the evaluation problem for concepts from @math . Using this equivalence we prove the following bounds: 1. @math , where @math is the Littlestone's (1987) dimension characterizing the number of mistakes in the online-mistake-bound learning model. Known bounds on @math then imply that @math can be much higher than the VC-dimension of @math . 2. For any @math , there exists a class @math such that @math but @math . 3. For any @math , there exists a class @math such that the sample complexity of (pure) @math -differentially private PAC learning is @math but the sample complexity of the relaxed @math -differentially private PAC learning is @math . This resolves an open problem of (2013b).