Private Kernel-Ridge Regression Estimator

• Private Kernel-Ridge Regression Estimator is a nonparametric regression method in RKHS that uses partitioning and sketching techniques to enhance privacy and computational efficiency.
• It divides the dataset into smaller partitions for local estimation, reducing data sensitivity and enabling parallel, modular noise addition.
• The approach achieves competitive error rates and significant computational savings, making it ideal for large-scale, distributed, and privacy-aware applications.

A private kernel-ridge regression estimator refers to a broad class of methods for estimating nonparametric regressions in a reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS) while leveraging algorithmic structures that facilitate privacy preservation—most notably through partitioning, sketching, or closed-form solutions that localize data exposure or reduce sensitivity. The term “private” in this context does not necessarily denote strict differential privacy guarantees, but rather highlights strategies conducive to modular and privacy-friendly computation within large-scale or distributed environments. These estimators build upon fundamental ideas in kernel ridge regression (KRR) and exploit partitioning of either the input or the feature space to gain computational and sometimes statistical benefits, as well as a more favorable privacy-utility tradeoff in situations requiring data protection.

1. Partition-Based Kernel Ridge Regression Estimators

A central paradigm for private KRR is the divide-and-conquer or partition-based approach. In this framework, the input space $\mathcal{X}$ is split into $m$ disjoint partitions (typically via clustering, such as $k$–means), and KRR is performed locally on each subset. Specifically, for a partition $\{C_1, \ldots, C_m\}$, the procedure is as follows:

1. Partitioning: Assign each data point to a unique $C_i$ using, e.g., a clustering algorithm.
2. Local Estimation: Within each $C_i$, solve the KRR problem:

$$\hat{f}_{i,\lambda} = \arg\min_{f \in \mathcal{H}} \left\{ \frac{1}{n_i} \sum_{x_j \in C_i} (y_j - f(x_j))^2 + \lambda \|f\|_{\mathcal{H}}^2 \right\}$$

where $n_i$ is the number of points in $C_i$.

1. Piecewise Prediction: For new $x \in C_i$, predict using the local estimator $\hat{f}_{i,\lambda}(x)$.

This "DC–estimator" structure reduces the size of matrix inversions from $n \times n$ to $n_i \times n_i$, yielding drastic computational savings when $n_i \ll n$ and enabling parallel or distributed implementations.

Privacy Implications

• Isolation of Data: Each partition can be processed independently, potentially on separate machines or under local differential privacy schemes, limiting central access to raw data.
• Reduced Sensitivity: With smaller $n_i$, the impact of a single datum on any local model decreases, allowing less noise to be required for differential privacy when calibrating per-partition estimators.
• Modular Noise Addition: Noise can be added to each local estimator, and the composed result achieves desired privacy guarantees via standard privacy composition rules.

A limitation is that poor partitioning (e.g., overly small $n_i$ or high “goodness measure” $g(\lambda)$) can degrade both statistical and privacy performance, necessitating careful cluster design (Tandon et al., 2016).

2. Theoretical Guarantees and Error Decomposition

Error analysis for partition-based KRR revolves around decomposing the generalization error into approximation, bias, variance, and regularization components. For the $i$th partition:

$$\mathbb{E}[\text{Err}_i(\hat{f}_{i,\lambda})] \leq 2\left[\text{Approx}_i(\theta) + 2\,\text{Reg}_i(\theta,\lambda) + 2\,\text{Bias}_i(\lambda, n) + 2\,\mathbb{E}[\text{Var}_i(\lambda, D)]\right]$$

The effective dimensionality $S(\lambda)$ and its partition-wise analogue $S_i(\lambda p_i)$ (with $p_i = P(x \in C_i)$) quantify the local complexity. The paper shows that, provided the partitions are well-chosen such that the “goodness measure” $g(\lambda) = (\sum_i S_i(\lambda p_i))/S(\lambda)$ stays $O(1)$, minimax-optimal rates can be obtained—e.g., $O(r/n)$ for finite-rank kernels and $O(n^{-\nu/(\nu+1)})$ for polynomially decaying eigenvalues (Tandon et al., 2016).

Partitioning reduces the approximation error: permitting the estimator to be piecewise (piecewise prediction function) can yield strictly smaller approximation error versus a global KRR, as the function class is effectively richer.

3. Computational and Statistical Advantages

Partition-based estimators replace a single $n \times n$ system inversion with $m$ systems of typical size $n_i \times n_i$ ($n_i \approx n/m$ if balanced), yielding an order-of-magnitude reduction in computational cost:

• Computation: The cost per partition scales as $O(n_i^3)$, so with balanced partitions, the aggregate inversion cost can be reduced by a factor of $m^2$ or more.
• Parallelizability: All local problems are independent and can be solved concurrently.
• Approximation Benefit: Constructing the global estimator as $f_*(x) = f_i(x)$ for $x \in C_i$ improves expressiveness and fit, resulting in lower generalization error for many problems.

Empirical evidence demonstrates that the DC–KRR estimator achieves test errors competitive with or below those of standard whole-data KRR, with considerable reductions in wall-clock runtime (Tandon et al., 2016).

4. Experimental Performance and Practical Applications

Partition-based KRR approaches have been validated on both synthetic and real-world datasets. Experiments include:

• Synthetic piecewise functions (piecewise constant, Gaussian, sinusoidal): DC–KRR often outperforms classical (Whole-KRR) and random-split ensemble approaches on generalization error.
• Real datasets (“house”, “air”, “cpusmall”, “CT Slice”, “Road”): DC–KRR achieves comparable or superior RMSE with substantially lower training times.

Evaluation of the partition quality (through $g(\lambda)$) confirms that with reasonable numbers of partitions, the aggregation of local complexities tracks that of the full space, upholding finite sample guarantees.

The approach is well-suited to distributed or federated deployments, large-scale scientific problems, and any context where regulatory or infrastructural barriers limit central data pooling.

5. Extensions and Advanced Partitioning Schemes

Further work, such as ParK (Carratino et al., 2021), extends partitioning to the feature (RKHS) space, constructing partitions via Voronoi tessellations using greedy selection of centroids that maximize geometric separation (measured by minimal principal angles between local subspaces). This orthogonality:

• Controls the accumulation of bias and effective dimension, ensuring that the excess risk remains bounded even as the number of partitions scales.
• Facilitates distributed training and supports hybrid schemes incorporating random projection (Nyström, sketching) and preconditioned iterative solvers.

The resulting estimators achieve the same minimax learning rates as global KRR, with provably controlled bias and variance. Orthogonal partitions also align naturally with distributed privacy requirements, as data associated with each partition can be handled in isolation, and privacy mechanisms (e.g., noise in gradient updates or preconditioners) can be modularly applied (Carratino et al., 2021).

6. Privacy Considerations and Utility Balancing

While partition-based KRR was not originally crafted for differential privacy guarantees, several of its properties are favorable for privacy-aware learning:

• Local Sensitivity Reduction: Each local model's parameters are less sensitive to individual data points, reducing the scale of noise needed for a given differential privacy target.
• Distributed Privacy Mechanisms: Privacy-preserving noise can be injected per-partition, exploiting privacy composition to optimize the utility–privacy tradeoff.
• Limitation: If partitions are too small or poorly chosen, required noise may dominate and degrade statistical performance. Partitioning methods must thus both promote utility and respect privacy-centric constraints.

A plausible implication is that private KRR estimators can use partitioning not merely for computational gain, but as a key technical device to align with both statistical accuracy and privacy objectives (Tandon et al., 2016, Carratino et al., 2021).

7. Mathematical Formulations

Key mathematical quantities governing partition-based KRR and its privacy/geometric aspects include:

• Effective dimensionality: $$S(\lambda) = \sum_j \frac{\lambda_j}{\lambda_j + \lambda}$$
• Partition-wise effective dimension: $$S_i(\lambda p_i) = \sum_j \frac{\lambda_{j,i}}{\lambda_{j,i} + \lambda p_i}$$
• Goodness measure: $g(\lambda) = (\sum_i S_i(\lambda p_i))/S(\lambda)$
• Error decomposition per partition:

$$\mathbb{E}[\text{Err}_i(\hat{f}_{i,\lambda})] \leq 2 [ \text{Approx}_i(\theta) + 2 \text{Reg}_i(\theta,\lambda) + 2 \text{Bias}_i(\lambda, n) + 2 \mathbb{E}[\text{Var}_i(\lambda, D)] ]$$

• Overall finite-rank error bound:

$$\mathbb{E}_D[\text{Err}(f_C)] = O \left( \lambda\|f^*\|^2_\mathcal{H} + \frac{\sigma^2}{n} g(\lambda) S(\lambda) + m\left(\frac{r^2 \log r}{n}\right)^{k/2}(\|f^*\|^2_\mathcal{H} + \sigma^2/\lambda) \right)$$

These expressions quantify the roles of approximation, partitioning, and regularization, and inform the design of privacy-preserving estimators by linking sensitivity, computational cost, and generalization error.

---

Partition-based and feature-space-partitioned kernel ridge regression estimators provide a foundational route to private or privacy-facilitating nonparametric regression in large-scale and distributed settings. They yield computational and statistical benefits—contingent on partition quality—and offer an architectural substrate for integrating privacy mechanisms with state-of-the-art learning guarantees (Tandon et al., 2016, Carratino et al., 2021).