Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Thomas Berrett

dblp:280/1140 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
2as first author
2since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 2 first-author · 2 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 · 100%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Learning theory · 100%
Theoretical computer science
2 papers
Information theory · 100%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100%

Topics — the 9 heaviest of 10, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Privacy and data protection › differential privacy
local differential privacy
1.532022
Network change point localisation under local differential privacy · NeurIPS 2022
Locally private online change point detection · NeurIPS 2021
Locally private non-asymptotic testing of discrete distributions is faster using interactive mechanisms · NeurIPS 2020
Bioinformatics and computational biology › network bioinformatics › biological network analysis
network analysis
0.612022
Network change point localisation under local differential privacy · NeurIPS 2022
Privacy and data protection
differential privacy
0.612022
Network change point localisation under local differential privacy · NeurIPS 2022
Machine learning › Learning theory
nonparametric regression
0.512021
Locally private online change point detection · NeurIPS 2021
Machine learning › Learning theory › hypothesis testing
sequential changepoint detection
0.512021
Locally private online change point detection · NeurIPS 2021
Privacy and data protection
change point detection
0.512021
Locally private online change point detection · NeurIPS 2021
Privacy and data protection
distribution testing
0.412020
Locally private non-asymptotic testing of discrete distributions is faster using interactive mechanisms · NeurIPS 2020
Information theory
hypothesis testing
0.412020
Locally private non-asymptotic testing of discrete distributions is faster using interactive mechanisms · NeurIPS 2020
Information theory › signal processing › signal analysis
signal-to-noise ratio analysis
0.212022
Network change point localisation under local differential privacy · NeurIPS 2022

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

polynomial-time algorithm · 1.7change point localisation · 1.7minimax lower bounds · 1.1minimax rate-optimal algorithms · 1.0false alarm control · 1.0randomized algorithm · 0.9minimax bounds · 0.9minimax lower bound · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Network change point localisation under local differential privacy
abstract
Network data are ubiquitous in our daily life, containing rich but often sensitive information. In this paper, we expand the current static analysis of privatised networks to a dynamic framework by considering a sequence of networks with potential change points. We investigate the fundamental limits in consistently localising change points under both node and edge privacy constraints, demonstrating interesting phase transition in terms of the signal-to-noise ratio condition, accompanied by polynomial-time algorithms. The private signal-to-noise ratio conditions quantify the costs of the privacy for change point localisation problems and exhibit a different scaling in the sparsity parameter compared to the non-private counterparts. Our algorithms are shown to be optimal under the edge LDP constraint up to log factors. Under node LDP constraint, a gap exists between our upper bound and lower bound and we leave it as an interesting open problem, echoing the challenges in high-dimensional statistical inference under LDP constraints.
Mengchu Li, Thomas Berrett
NeurIPS2
2021 Locally private online change point detection
abstract
We study online change point detection problems under the constraint of local differential privacy (LDP) where, in particular, the statistician does not have access to the raw data. As a concrete problem, we study a multivariate nonparametric regression problem. At each time point $t$, the raw data are assumed to be of the form $(X_t, Y_t)$, where $X_t$ is a $d$-dimensional feature vector and $Y_t$ is a response variable. Our primary aim is to detect changes in the regression function $m_t(x)=\mathbb{E}(Y_t |X_t=x)$ as soon as the change occurs. We provide algorithms which respect the LDP constraint, which control the false alarm probability, and which detect changes with a minimal (minimax rate-optimal) delay. To quantify the cost of privacy, we also present the optimal rate in the benchmark, non-private setting. These non-private results are also new to the literature and thus are interesting \emph{per se}. In addition, we study the univariate mean online change point detection problem, under privacy constraints. This serves as the blueprint of studying more complicated private change point detection problems.
Thomas Berrett
NeurIPS1
2020 Locally private non-asymptotic testing of discrete distributions is faster using interactive mechanisms
abstract
We find separation rates for testing multinomial or more general discrete distributions under the constraint of alpha-local differential privacy. We construct efficient randomized algorithms and test procedures, in both the case where only non-interactive privacy mechanisms are allowed and also in the case where all sequentially interactive privacy mechanisms are allowed. The separation rates are faster in the latter case. We prove general information theoretical bounds that allow us to establish the optimality of our algorithms among all pairs of privacy mechanisms and test procedures, in most usual cases. Considered examples include testing uniform, polynomially and exponentially decreasing distributions.
Thomas Berrett, Cristina Butucea
NeurIPS1