-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 57
Fix epsilon_from_gdp to return a valid high-confidence lower bound #270
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
vvv214
wants to merge
5
commits into
google-deepmind:main
Choose a base branch
from
vvv214:fix-auditing-gdp-lower-bound
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+86
−23
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
65e2006
Fix epsilon_from_gdp to return a valid two-sided lower bound
vvv214 5844ce9
Implement two-sided GDP lower-bound audit
vvv214 3c0313e
Avoid protected access in two-sided GDP audit
vvv214 b7b5c3d
Clarify two-sided GDP audit implementation
vvv214 4c4d65c
Trigger CI rerun
vvv214 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -607,6 +607,54 @@ def test_epsilon_from_gdp_tight(self, mu, out_samples_ratio): | |
| true_eps = dp_accounting.get_epsilon_gaussian(1 / mu, delta) | ||
| np.testing.assert_allclose(eps, true_eps, rtol=0.05) | ||
|
|
||
| def test_epsilon_from_gdp_null_is_zero(self): | ||
| rng = np.random.default_rng(seed=0xBAD5EED) | ||
| significance = 0.05 | ||
| delta = 1e-5 | ||
| m = 5000 | ||
| in_canary_scores = rng.normal(0, 1, m) | ||
| out_canary_scores = rng.normal(0, 1, m) | ||
| auditor = auditing.CanaryScoreAuditor(in_canary_scores, out_canary_scores) | ||
|
|
||
| eps = auditor.epsilon_from_gdp(significance, delta) | ||
| self.assertLessEqual(eps, 0.1) | ||
|
|
||
| def test_epsilon_from_gdp_separated_is_positive(self): | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This test is less specific than the earlier test [test_epsilon_from_gdp_tight]. Please remove it. |
||
| rng = np.random.default_rng(seed=0xBAD5EED) | ||
| significance = 0.05 | ||
| delta = 1e-5 | ||
| m = 5000 | ||
| in_canary_scores = rng.normal(3.0, 1, m) | ||
| out_canary_scores = rng.normal(0, 1, m) | ||
| auditor = auditing.CanaryScoreAuditor(in_canary_scores, out_canary_scores) | ||
|
|
||
| eps = auditor.epsilon_from_gdp(significance, delta) | ||
| self.assertGreater(eps, 1.0) | ||
|
|
||
| def test_epsilon_from_gdp_reverse_separated_is_positive(self): | ||
| rng = np.random.default_rng(seed=0xBAD5EED) | ||
| significance = 0.05 | ||
| delta = 1e-5 | ||
| m = 5000 | ||
| in_canary_scores = rng.normal(0.0, 1, m) | ||
| out_canary_scores = rng.normal(3.0, 1, m) | ||
| auditor = auditing.CanaryScoreAuditor(in_canary_scores, out_canary_scores) | ||
|
|
||
| eps = auditor.epsilon_from_gdp(significance, delta) | ||
| self.assertGreater(eps, 1.0) | ||
|
|
||
| def test_epsilon_from_gdp_small_sample_null_is_zero(self): | ||
| rng = np.random.default_rng(seed=0xC0FFEE) | ||
| significance = 0.05 | ||
| delta = 1e-5 | ||
| m = 50 | ||
| in_canary_scores = rng.normal(0, 1, m) | ||
| out_canary_scores = rng.normal(0, 1, m) | ||
| auditor = auditing.CanaryScoreAuditor(in_canary_scores, out_canary_scores) | ||
|
|
||
| eps = auditor.epsilon_from_gdp(significance, delta) | ||
| self.assertLessEqual(eps, 0.1) | ||
|
|
||
| @parameterized.product( | ||
| quantiles=(0.025, 0.975, (0.025, 0.975), (0.025, 0.5, 0.975)), | ||
| bootstrap_type=('quantile', 'bias_correction', 'acceleration'), | ||
|
|
||
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If I understand correctly, the change in this PR means that if the in_canary_scores have smaller values on average than out_canary_scores, the returned epsilon is zero. If so, we should test that case like:
in_canary_scores = rng.normal(-1, 1, m)
out_canary_scores = rng.normal(0, 1, m)
I would suggest that instead of this test and test_epsilon_from_gdp_small_sample_null_is_zero below, we have a single parameterized product test that looks at
(large sample, small sample) x (mu 0, mu negative)