Private Algorithms for Stochastic Saddle Points and Variational Inequalities: Beyond Euclidean Geometry

In this work, we conduct a systematic study of stochastic saddle point problems (SSP) and stochastic variational inequalities (SVI) under the constraint of $(\epsilon,\delta)$-differential privacy (DP) in both Euclidean and non-Euclidean setups. We first consider Lipschitz convex-concave SSPs in the $\ell_p/\ell_q$ setup, $p,q\in[1,2]$. Here, we obtain a bound of $\tilde{O}\big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{\sqrt{d}}{n\epsilon}\big)$ on the strong SP-gap, where $n$ is the number of samples and $d$ is the dimension. This rate is nearly optimal for any $p,q\in[1,2]$. Without additional assumptions, such as smoothness or linearity requirements, prior work under DP has only obtained this rate when $p=q=2$ (i.e., only in the Euclidean setup). Further, existing algorithms have each only been shown to work for specific settings of $p$ and $q$ and under certain assumptions on the loss and the feasible set, whereas we provide a general algorithm for DP SSPs whenever $p,q\in[1,2]$. Our result is obtained via a novel analysis of the recursive regularization algorithm. In particular, we develop new tools for analyzing generalization, which may be of independent interest. Next, we turn our attention towards SVIs with a monotone, bounded and Lipschitz operator and consider $\ell_p$-setups, $p\in[1,2]$. Here, we provide the first analysis which obtains a bound on the strong VI-gap of $\tilde{O}\big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{\sqrt{d}}{n\epsilon}\big)$. For $p-1=\Omega(1)$, this rate is near optimal due to existing lower bounds. To obtain this result, we develop a modified version of recursive regularization. Our analysis builds on the techniques we develop for SSPs as well as employing additional novel components which handle difficulties arising from adapting the recursive regularization framework to SVIs.

Paper

References (42)

Scroll for more · 30 remaining

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer nH8p5/10 · confidence 2/52024-07-01

Summary

This paper studies private SSP beyond Euclidean geometry. They prove a near optimal bound on SP-gap for geometry between $\ell_1 ,\ell_2$. This result is then extended to SVI.

Strengths

The results are solid improvement over previous work. The method on overcoming the generalization issue is novel and interesting.

Weaknesses

I have a few concerns on the technical results. (1) what’s $A_{emp}$ in your algorithm. It’s the key subroutine while never formally defined or specified. Can you give a concrete example as you claimed in line 182? (2) is there any algorithmic novelty compared with previous work, or it’s just an improved analysis? The comparison with BGM23 can be made more clear. (3) can you give some practical examples to prompt the need of considering noneuclidean geometry, otherwise it looks somewhat incremental. There are numerous typos.

Questions

See weaknesses.

Rating

5

Confidence

2

Soundness

2

Presentation

2

Contribution

3

Limitations

See weaknesses.

Reviewer sj995/10 · confidence 2/52024-07-17

Summary

This paper is quite far from my area, so please consider this review accordingly. The paper addresses the problem of private Stochastic Saddle Points and Variational Inequalities. The primary contribution is extending previous work that focused solely on the L2/L2 setup to more general lp/lq settings, where the primal problem follows an lp-setup and the dual problem follows an lq-setup. The main result is the development of an algorithm that achieves optimal excess error measured by the strong SP-gap.

Strengths

The paper, in general, feels quite dense. For instance, the second paragraph mentions monotone operators without providing a definition. Additionally, the contribution section is not clear to me. The algorithmic aspect of the work is very similar to [BGM23]. However, the authors needed to make some changes to the analysis, and they did a good job describing these necessary modifications.

Weaknesses

The main weakness of the work is its presentation. It is very difficult to parse many parts of the paper.

Questions

n/a

Rating

5

Confidence

2

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

yes

Reviewer 9vNb5/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-20

Summary

This work studied stochastic saddle point and variational inequality problems in potentially non-Euclidean cases. For stochastic saddle point problems, they proposed a recursive regularization framework, and provided the convergence guarantee and sample complexity for convex-concave problems. They further extended the framework to variational inequalities and incorporated differential privacy. Corresponding convergence guarantees and complexities results are also provided.

Strengths

1. First work on SSPs and SVIs in general non-Euclidean settings. 2. The proposed rate is nearly optimal

Weaknesses

1. The boundedness assumption is a bit restricted, regarding many unconstrained problems in practice. 2. Some important assumptions are hidden in the statement of Theorems, for example, the strong convexity of $||\cdot||_\omega$ and $||\cdot||_o$, while it is not fully rationalized (beyond $\ell_p, p\in(1,2]$ case), and it may not be satisfied in some important special case like $\ell_1$, I think the motivation for non-Euclidean 3. The paper flow and main results are a bit similar to [BGM23], which makes it a little incremental. Even though the authors claimed some differences, but from the appendix, many proofs are still very similar to those in [BGM23] with minor changes like $\kappa$. But I agree the changes in some parts like the proof of Property P.2 reveal certain novelty. Typo: 1. In Algorithms, the parameters of $\mathcal{A}_{\text{emp}}(\cdot,\cdot,\cdot,\cdot)$ are not clearly defined

Questions

/

Rating

5

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

2

Limitations

/

Reviewer mPfo6/10 · confidence 2/52024-07-30

Summary

The authors study differentially private algorithms for stochastic saddle point (SSP) problems and stochastic variational inequalities (SVI). The proposed method relies on recursive regularization approach and obtain near optimal rates for settings were the parameters of interest are constrained to be in a bounded \ell_p ball and p \in [1,2].

Strengths

The methods proposed by the authors recover many existing optimal results using different proof techniques. They extend the scope of the existing results with a unified analysis.

Weaknesses

The paper does not seem to be self-contained. Some important components of the algorithms are not explicitly described, which makes it difficult to verify some of the claims in this work. The authors should include more details in the supplementary materials.

Questions

I have two main comments: 1. The subroutine $\mathcal{A}_{emp}$ is never explicitly introduced. Here are some of sources of confusion for the reader: - Is this subroutine the same one in Algorithms 1 and 3? - In line 6 of Algorithm 1 the subroutine takes 4 inputs, none of which seems to be related to privacy parameters ?. However, in lines 258-258 the authors say that the privacy of Algorithm 1 follows from the privacy of $\mathcal{A}_{emp}$. - The construction of $\mathcal{A}_{emp}$ in lines 754-757 consists of taking the output of the SVRG algorithm of Palaniappan and Bach (2016) and add Gaussian noise to it? I think the precise SVRG algorithm the authors have in mind should also be presented. Some none trivial adaptations seems to be required. 2. Algorithm 1 requires $T=O(\log n)$ since $\lambda\geq \frac{K\kappa}{B\sqrt{n}}$ and $T=\log_2(\frac{L}{B\lambda})$. However, Lemma 3 requires a much larger number of gradient evaluations of roughly $\tilde{\Omega}(n^{3/2})$ to get the claimed accuracy that in turn is also needed in Corollary 1? Essentially the same comment applies to Theorem 2 and Corollary 2.

Rating

6

Confidence

2

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

The nature of this work is theoretical but it is natural to wonder if the methods are easy to implement. Have the authors tried to run any numerical experiments?

Reviewer nH8p2024-08-08

Thank you for your response! The paper can benefit from adding these explanations/discussions. I will maintain my score.

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC