Differentially Private Empirical Risk Minimization with Sparsity-Inducing Norms

Differential privacy is concerned about the prediction quality while measuring the privacy impact on individuals whose information is contained in the data. We consider differentially private risk minimization problems with regularizers that induce structured sparsity. These regularizers are known to be convex but they are often non-differentiable. We analyze the standard differentially private algorithms, such as output perturbation, Frank-Wolfe and objective perturbation. Output perturbation is a differentially private algorithm that is known to perform well for minimizing risks that are strongly convex. Previous works have derived excess risk bounds that are independent of the dimensionality. In this paper, we assume a particular class of convex but non-smooth regularizers that induce structured sparsity and loss functions for generalized linear models. We also consider differentially private Frank-Wolfe algorithms to optimize the dual of the risk minimization problem. We derive excess risk bounds for both these algorithms. Both the bounds depend on the Gaussian width of the unit ball of the dual norm. We also show that objective perturbation of the risk minimization problems is equivalent to the output perturbation of a dual optimization problem. This is the first work that analyzes the dual optimization problems of risk minimization problems in the context of differential privacy

Non-convex regularization in remote sensing

In this paper, we study the effect of different regularizers and their implications in high dimensional image classification and sparse linear unmixing. Although kernelization or sparse methods are globally accepted solutions for processing data in high dimensions, we present here a study on the impact of the form of regularization used and its parametrization. We consider regularization via traditional squared (2) and sparsity-promoting (1) norms, as well as more unconventional nonconvex regularizers (p and Log Sum Penalty). We compare their properties and advantages on several classification and linear unmixing tasks and provide advices on the choice of the best regularizer for the problem at hand. Finally, we also provide a fully functional toolbox for the community.Comment: 11 pages, 11 figure

Low Complexity Regularization of Linear Inverse Problems

Inverse problems and regularization theory is a central theme in contemporary signal processing, where the goal is to reconstruct an unknown signal from partial indirect, and possibly noisy, measurements of it. A now standard method for recovering the unknown signal is to solve a convex optimization problem that enforces some prior knowledge about its structure. This has proved efficient in many problems routinely encountered in imaging sciences, statistics and machine learning. This chapter delivers a review of recent advances in the field where the regularization prior promotes solutions conforming to some notion of simplicity/low-complexity. These priors encompass as popular examples sparsity and group sparsity (to capture the compressibility of natural signals and images), total variation and analysis sparsity (to promote piecewise regularity), and low-rank (as natural extension of sparsity to matrix-valued data). Our aim is to provide a unified treatment of all these regularizations under a single umbrella, namely the theory of partial smoothness. This framework is very general and accommodates all low-complexity regularizers just mentioned, as well as many others. Partial smoothness turns out to be the canonical way to encode low-dimensional models that can be linear spaces or more general smooth manifolds. This review is intended to serve as a one stop shop toward the understanding of the theoretical properties of the so-regularized solutions. It covers a large spectrum including: (i) recovery guarantees and stability to noise, both in terms of $\ell^2$-stability and model (manifold) identification; (ii) sensitivity analysis to perturbations of the parameters involved (in particular the observations), with applications to unbiased risk estimation ; (iii) convergence properties of the forward-backward proximal splitting scheme, that is particularly well suited to solve the corresponding large-scale regularized optimization problem