Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Lynn Chua
dblp:143/4392
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
3as first author
4since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 3 first-author · 4 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Network and information security
3 papers |
Privacy and data protection · 84% Security and privacy of machine learning · 16% | |
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Trustworthy machine learning · 100% | |
| Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper |
Parallel and multicore computing · 100% |
Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Privacy and data protection
differential privacy |
1.5 | 2 | 2024 | Scalable DP-SGD: Shuffling vs. Poisson Subsampling · NeurIPS 2024 How Private are DP-SGD Implementations? · ICML 2024 |
Privacy and data protection › differential privacy › differentially private deep learning
DP-SGD |
1.5 | 2 | 2024 | Scalable DP-SGD: Shuffling vs. Poisson Subsampling · NeurIPS 2024 How Private are DP-SGD Implementations? · ICML 2024 |
Privacy and data protection › differential privacy
privacy accounting |
1.5 | 2 | 2024 | Scalable DP-SGD: Shuffling vs. Poisson Subsampling · NeurIPS 2024 How Private are DP-SGD Implementations? · ICML 2024 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
machine unlearning |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Unlearn and Burn: Adversarial Machine Unlearning Requests Destroy Model Accuracy · ICLR 2025 |
Parallel and multicore computing › parallel computation models
massively parallel computation |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Scalable DP-SGD: Shuffling vs. Poisson Subsampling · NeurIPS 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
shuffling · 2.3poisson subsampling · 2.3adaptive batch linear queries · 2.3white-box attack · 1.7black-box attack · 1.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Balls-and-Bins Sampling for DP-SGDabstractWe introduce the \emph{Balls-and-Bins} sampling for differentially private (DP) optimization methods such as DP-SGD. While it has been common practice to use some form of shuffling in DP-SGD implementations, privacy accounting algorithms have typically assumed that Poisson subsampling is used instead. Recent work by Chua et al. (2024), however, pointed out that shuffling based DP-SGD can have a much larger privacy cost in practical regimes of parameters. In this work we show that the Balls-and-Bins sampling achieves the "best-of-both" samplers, namely, the implementation of Balls-and-Bins sampling is similar to that of Shuffling and models trained using DP-SGD with Balls-and-Bins sampling achieve utility comparable to those trained using DP-SGD with Shuffling at the same noise multiplier, and yet, Balls-and-Bins sampling enjoys similar-or-better privacy amplification as compared to Poisson subsampling in practical regimes. Lynn Chua, Badih Ghazi, Charlie Harrison, Pritish Kamath, Ravi Kumar 0001, Ethan Leeman, Pasin Manurangsi, Amer Sinha, Chiyuan Zhang |
AISTATS | 1 |
| 2025 | Unlearn and Burn: Adversarial Machine Unlearning Requests Destroy Model AccuracyabstractMachine unlearning algorithms, designed for selective removal of training data from models, have emerged as a promising approach to growing privacy concerns. In this work, we expose a critical yet underexplored vulnerability in the deployment of unlearning systems: the assumption that the data requested for removal is always part of the original training set. We present a threat model where an attacker can degrade model accuracy by submitting adversarial unlearning requests for data \textit{not} present in the training set. We propose white-box and black-box attack algorithms and evaluate them through a case study on image classification tasks using the CIFAR-10 and ImageNet datasets, targeting a family of widely used unlearning methods. Our results show extremely poor test accuracy following the attack—3.6% on CIFAR-10 and 0.4% on ImageNet for white-box attacks, and 8.5% on CIFAR-10 and 1.3% on ImageNet for black-box attacks. Additionally, we evaluate various verification mechanisms to detect the legitimacy of unlearning requests and reveal the challenges in verification, as most of the mechanisms fail to detect stealthy attacks without severely impairing their ability to process valid requests. These findings underscore the urgent need for research on more robust request verification methods and unlearning protocols, should the deployment of machine unlearning systems become more prevalent in the future. Yangsibo Huang, Daogao Liu, Lynn Chua, Badih Ghazi, Pritish Kamath, Ravi Kumar 0001, Pasin Manurangsi, Milad Nasr, Amer Sinha, Chiyuan Zhang |
ICLR | 3 |
| 2024 | How Private are DP-SGD Implementations?abstractWe demonstrate a substantial gap between the privacy guarantees of the Adaptive Batch Linear Queries (ABLQ) mechanism under different types of batch sampling: (i) Shuffling, and (ii) Poisson subsampling; the typical analysis of Differentially Private Stochastic Gradient Descent (DP-SGD) follows by interpreting it as a post-processing of ABLQ. While shuffling-based DP-SGD is more commonly used in practical implementations, it has not been amenable to easy privacy analysis, either analytically or even numerically. On the other hand, Poisson subsampling-based DP-SGD is challenging to scalably implement, but has a well-understood privacy analysis, with multiple open-source numerically tight privacy accountants available. This has led to a common practice of using shuffling-based DP-SGD in practice, but using the privacy analysis for the corresponding Poisson subsampling version. Our result shows that there can be a substantial gap between the privacy analysis when using the two types of batch sampling, and thus advises caution in reporting privacy parameters for DP-SGD. Lynn Chua, Badih Ghazi, Pritish Kamath, Ravi Kumar 0001, Pasin Manurangsi, Amer Sinha, Chiyuan Zhang |
ICML | 1 |
| 2024 | Scalable DP-SGD: Shuffling vs. Poisson SubsamplingabstractWe provide new lower bounds on the privacy guarantee of _multi-epoch_ Adaptive Batch Linear Queries (ABLQ) mechanism with _shuffled batch sampling_, demonstrating substantial gaps when compared to _Poisson subsampling_; prior analysis was limited to a single epoch.
Since the privacy analysis of Differentially Private Stochastic Gradient Descent (DP-SGD) is obtained by analyzing the ABLQ mechanism, this brings into serious question the common practice of implementing Shuffling based DP-SGD, but reporting privacy parameters as if Poisson subsampling was used.
To understand the impact of this gap on the utility of trained machine learning models, we introduce a novel practical approach to implement Poisson subsampling _at scale_ using massively parallel computation, and efficiently train models with the same.
We provide a comparison between the utility of models trained with Poisson subsampling based DP-SGD, and the optimistic estimates of utility when using shuffling, via our new lower bounds on the privacy guarantee of ABLQ with shuffling. Lynn Chua, Badih Ghazi, Pritish Kamath, Ravi Kumar 0001, Pasin Manurangsi, Amer Sinha, Chiyuan Zhang |
NeurIPS | 1 |