EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Amer Sinha
dblp:296/8288
· DBLP profile ↗
7ranked-venue papers
0as first author
7since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 7 · 7 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
6 papers |
Privacy and data protection · 86% Security and privacy of machine learning · 9% Cryptographic protocols and secure computation · 5% | |
| Artificial intelligence
3 papers |
Efficient and distributed learning · 43% Trustworthy machine learning · 28% Deep learning architectures and training · 28% |
Topics — the 13 heaviest of 14, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Privacy and data protection
differential privacy |
3.5 | 5 | 2025 | Scaling Laws for Differentially Private Language Models · ICML 2025 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 |
Machine learning › Deep learning architectures and training
scaling laws |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Scaling Laws for Differentially Private Language Models · ICML 2025 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › distributed training › gradient compression
gradient sparsification |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Sparsity-Preserving Differentially Private Training of Large Embedding Models · NeurIPS 2023 |
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning
model compression |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Sparsity-Preserving Differentially Private Training of Large Embedding Models · NeurIPS 2023 |
Privacy and data protection › differential privacy › differentially private learning
differentially private training |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Sparsity-Preserving Differentially Private Training of Large Embedding Models · NeurIPS 2023 |
Privacy and data protection › differential privacy
private aggregation |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Differentially Private Aggregation in the Shuffle Model: Almost Central Accuracy in Almost a Single Message · ICML 2021 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › secure aggregation
secure summation |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Differentially Private Aggregation in the Shuffle Model: Almost Central Accuracy in Almost a Single Message · ICML 2021 |
Privacy and data protection › differential privacy › distributed differential privacy
shuffle model |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | Differentially Private Aggregation in the Shuffle Model: Almost Central Accuracy in Almost a Single Message · ICML 2021 |
Parallel and multicore computing › parallel computation models
massively parallel computation |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Scalable DP-SGD: Shuffling vs. Poisson Subsampling · NeurIPS 2024 |
Information retrieval › retrieval models › representation learning for retrieval
embedding model |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | Sparsity-Preserving Differentially Private Training of Large Embedding Models · NeurIPS 2023 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
shuffling · 2.3poisson subsampling · 2.3adaptive batch linear queries · 2.3adaptive gradient sparsification · 2.0DP-SGD · 2.0white-box attack · 1.7differential privacy · 1.7black-box attack · 1.7laplace mechanism · 0.5
| 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 | 8 |
| 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 | 9 |
| 2025 | Scaling Laws for Differentially Private Language ModelsabstractScaling laws have emerged as important components of large language model (LLM) training as they can predict performance gains through scale, and provide guidance on important hyper-parameter choices that would otherwise be expensive. LLMs also rely on large, high-quality training datasets, like those sourced from (sometimes sensitive) user data. Training models on this sensitive user data requires careful privacy protections like differential privacy (DP). However, the dynamics of DP training are significantly different, and consequently their scaling laws are not yet fully understood. In this work, we establish scaling laws that accurately model the intricacies of DP LLM training, providing a complete picture of the compute-privacy-utility and the optimal training configurations in many settings. Ryan McKenna, Yangsibo Huang, Amer Sinha, Borja Balle, Zachary Charles, Christopher A. Choquette-Choo, Badih Ghazi, Georgios Kaissis, Ravi Kumar 0001, Ruibo Liu, Chiyuan Zhang |
ICML | 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 | 6 |
| 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 | 6 |
| 2023 | Sparsity-Preserving Differentially Private Training of Large Embedding ModelsabstractAs the use of large embedding models in recommendation systems and language applications increases, concerns over user data privacy have also risen. DP-SGD, a training algorithm that combines differential privacy with stochastic gradient descent, has been the workhorse in protecting user privacy without compromising model accuracy by much. However, applying DP-SGD naively to embedding models can destroy gradient sparsity, leading to reduced training efficiency. To address this issue, we present two new algorithms, DP-FEST and DP-AdaFEST, that preserve gradient sparsity during the private training of large embedding models. Our algorithms achieve substantial reductions ($10^6 \times$) in gradient size, while maintaining comparable levels of accuracy, on benchmark real-world datasets. Badih Ghazi, Yangsibo Huang, Pritish Kamath, Ravi Kumar 0001, Pasin Manurangsi, Amer Sinha, Chiyuan Zhang |
NeurIPS | 6 |
| 2021 | Differentially Private Aggregation in the Shuffle Model: Almost Central Accuracy in Almost a Single MessageabstractThe shuffle model of differential privacy has attracted attention in the literature due to it being a middle ground between the well-studied central and local models. In this work, we study the problem of summing (aggregating) real numbers or integers, a basic primitive in numerous machine learning tasks, in the shuffle model. We give a protocol achieving error arbitrarily close to that of the (Discrete) Laplace mechanism in central differential privacy, while each user only sends 1 + o(1) short messages in expectation. Badih Ghazi, Ravi Kumar 0001, Pasin Manurangsi, Rasmus Pagh, Amer Sinha |
ICML | 5 |