Papers › An Empirical Study on the Intrinsic Privacy of SGD

An Empirical Study on the Intrinsic Privacy of SGD

5 Dec 2019arXiv:1912.02919archive 2025-07-28

Stephanie L. Hyland, Shruti Tople

Introducing noise in the training of machine learning systems is a powerful way to protect individual privacy via differential privacy guarantees, but comes at a cost to utility. This work looks at whether the inherent randomness of stochastic gradient descent (SGD) could contribute to privacy, effectively reducing the amount of \emph{additional} noise required to achieve a given privacy guarantee. We conduct a large-scale empirical study to examine this question. Training a grid of over 120,000 models across four datasets (tabular and images) on convex and non-convex objectives, we demonstrate that the random seed has a larger impact on model weights than any individual training example. We test the distribution over weights induced by the seed, finding that the simple convex case can be modelled with a multivariate Gaussian posterior, while neural networks exhibit multi-modal and non-Gaussian weight distributions. By casting convex SGD as a Gaussian mechanism, we then estimate an `intrinsic' data-dependent ϵᵢ(𝒟), finding values as low as 6.3, dropping to 1.9 using empirical estimates. We use a membership inference attack to estimate ϵ for non-convex SGD and demonstrate that hiding the random seed from the adversary results in a statistically significant reduction in attack performance, corresponding to a reduction in the effective ϵ. These results provide empirical evidence that SGD exhibits appreciable variability relative to its dataset sensitivity, and this `intrinsic noise' has the potential to be leveraged to improve the utility of privacy-preserving machine learning.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

16 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 16 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-25; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 16 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from microsoft/intrinsic-private-sgd. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections