# Rutgers ECE is Hiring (2018 edition)

My department is hiring for (potentially) multiple positions!

Hiring areas for this search are: (i) Electronics, including sensors, devices, bioelectronics, as well as integrated circuits and systems for RF and millimeter wave applications, (ii) Information processing and machine learning for autonomous systems and robots, especially learning and control in autonomous systems such as vehicles or drones as well as in assistive technologies, (iii) E-health, especially wearable electronics and sensors, medical informatics, quantified self and personalized medicine, as well as (iv) Cyber-physical systems, including signal processing and machine learning techniques, embedded systems, device and software security, IoT security, and applications to smart cities. Exceptional candidates in the university strategic areas are also welcome to apply.

# NSF Report Markdown file

I experienced a horrible “network dropping causes web forms to clear” experience when filing an NSF report a few years back, so I switched to filling things in via the NSF’s Word template. However, the extraneous formatting in that made the cut-and-paste into the webworm tedious. So this time around I created a Markdown (.md) template with all of the questions you need to answer. This makes it easier to edit and lightly format your report text offline (e.g. on a plane) for much faster cut-and-paste later.

# IPAM Workshop on Algorithmic Challenges in Protecting Privacy for Biomedical Data

IPAM is hosting a workshop on Algorithmic Challenges in Protecting Privacy for Biomedical Data” which will be held at IPAM from January 10-12, 2018.

The workshop will be attended by many junior as well as senior researchers with diverse backgrounds. We want to to encourage students or postdoctoral scholars who might be interested, to apply and/or register for this workshop.

I think it will be quite interesting and has the potential to spark a lot of interesting conversations around what we can and cannot do about privacy for medical data in general and genomic data in specific.

# The Ideological Echo Chamber of the Beach

Disclaimer: I think that the beach should be open to all. Clearly there are some who unfairly malign some beach-goers. However, we need to have an honest discussion about the differences between different types of beach denizens. Thankfully, because I am a Star-Bellied and not Star-Eyed Sneech, I believe that we we can have an open and frank discussion about why Sneeches who originally did not have stars on their bellies have been disrupting the natural hierarchy of the beach. This bias towards equal-starness in Sneechdom threatens the viability of the beach and makes pariahs of those Sneeches whose came by their stars honestly [1]. It is imperative that we have this conversation now before the beach is destroyed forever.

There are obvious innate biological differences between Star-Bellied Sneeches and Common Sneeches. Star-bellied Sneeches have stars: this makes them more adept at skills that require people who have stars on their bellies [2]. Star-Belliedness is heritable: evolutionary sneechology shows that the reason Star-Bellied Sneeches are the “best kind of Sneetch on the beaches” because of the benefits conferred by their stars. What could be more simple? Of course, there are occasional bad Star-Bellied Sneeches and occasional good Common Sneeches, but the fact is on average, the Common Sneech is simply not as good on the beach as the Star-Bellied Sneech. Since the only difference between them is the star, it is only logical to assume that having a star makes a Sneech better at being on the beach.

Star-Bellied Sneeches are better at beach-related activities such as hiking and playing ball [3]. They are natural denizens of the warm beaches. By contrast, the Sneeches without stars are less adapted, preferring the “cold in the dark of the beaches” and “moping alone on the beaches.” This explains why the two types have different roles: Common Sneeches prefer the cold and moping alone because that is what they are good at. Unfortunately, because of our new culture of suppressing traditional viewpoints, we cannot have an honest discussion about this beach-appropriateness gap; the dire consequences of attempting to make all Sneeches have equivalent stars discriminates against the true Star-Bellied Sneeches. The time has come where a Star-Bellied Sneech can no longer speak of “frankfurter roasts, or picnics or parties or marshmallow toasts,” without requiring that Common Sneeches be invited too (despite the superficial appearance of their stars).

As an employee of Sylvester McMonkey McBean Corp. (SMMC), I feel it is my duty to speak out against unfair discrimination against Star-bellied Sneeches. The company offers special “fix-it-up” training and that puts stars on the bellies of Common Sneeches. What’s more, this star service is only available to Sneeches without stars! This is highly discriminatory: how can will we ever know whose stars are original and whose stars are the result of special training? This violates the natural order of things. Because Common Sneeches have a tendency to mope alone, we run the risk of having Sneeches without innate hiking- and ball-playing-skill gaining prominence on the beech. Again, this is not bad for specific Sneeches, but on average will make SMMC less competitive and the beach sub-optimal.

My recommendation is that we should treat each Sneech individually. Those Common Sneeches who are demonstrably non-mopey and can, in controlled environments, enjoy a marshmallow toast, could be possibly considered for further admission into frankfurter roasts and picnics. However, we cannot simply erase differences between Sneeches by allowing non-Star-Bellied Sneeches to obtain stars. It may be politically incorrect to say this, but we must have a way of distinguishing those Common Sneeches who are deserving of stars from those who are not [4].

Sylvester McMonkey McBean Corp. is treading down a dangerous path and is alienating a great number of Star-Bellied Sneeches. I have received very positive feedback regarding these opinions, so there is clearly a “silent minority” of Star-Bellied Sneeches who are yearning for an open conversation [5] about these topics. However, the beach has become an inhospitable plate for the rational-minded Sneech.

In closing, I wish to state here that I do not intend to offend Common Sneeches: therefore I cannot possibly have offended any of them, because I said so. That is logic that any Star-Bellied Sneech can understand: Sneeches who cannot are clearly Common mopes.

[1] That is, they were born with them.

[2] For example, fooling starfish while snorkeling is something only Star-bellied Sneeches can do.

[3] While it’s true that in previous years “you could only play ball if your bellies had stars,” I would like to strenuously emphasize that that is #NotAllStarBellies. Not mentioning this disclaimer is evidence of the ideological commitment to the notion that all Sneeches are similarly capable of playing ball. Common Sneeches should perhaps play in a league of their own.

[4] Although there may be Star-Bellied Sneeches who fail to meet the bar, this can be addressed by introducing better role models and mentors. Unfortunately, such programs are only available to Common Sneeches.

[5] Preferably one only involving non-mopey Sneeches.

# 100 signatures needed by 5/12 to nominate José Moura for IEEE President

As I wrote earlierJosé Moura is trying to get on the ballot for IEEE President. The deadline is May 12 and he needs only 100 more signatures to get onto the ballot. If you are an IEEE member please take the 1 minute to sign the petition to get him on the ballot.

IEEE has an undemocratic nominations process in which the IEEE Board of Directors (BoD) gets to decide who the candidates will be. Because Prof. Moura opposed the BoD proposed amendment to consolidate power into the BoD and reduce regional representation, it is not hard to imagine that the BoD would not want to allow dissenting voices in the Presidential race. There is a petition at the IEEE website to put him on the ballot. It needs around 4,000 signatures and students members are also welcome to sign. You sign in with your IEEE account and then go to “Annual Election Petitions.”

Put José Moura on the ballot!

# Retraction for Symmetric Matrix Perturbation for Differentially-Private Principal Component Analysis, ICASSP 2016

This is somewhat difficult to write, so I’ll cut to the chase. The proposed differentially private PCA method from the ICASSP 2016 paper by my student Hafiz Imtiaz and myself is incorrect and so should be retracted:

H. Imtiaz, A.D. Sarwate, Symmetric Matrix Perturbation for Differentially-Private Principal Component Analysis, Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp. 2339–2343, March 2016.

As a side-result, the paper of Jiang et al. from AAAI 2016 has as similar incorrect result. I’d like to thank my collaborator Kamalika Chaudhuri, who brought this up to me after a conversation with Kunal Talwar. The fact that I have taken so long to make this public announcement was due to a misguided effort to adapt the algorithm and run new experiments. Unfortunately, this was not to be.

What is the algorithm? Well, the basic idea in all of these papers is to add Wishart noise to produce a noisy estimate of the second-moment matrix of a data set. We start with some data vectors $\mathbf{x}_1, \mathbf{x}_2, \ldots, \mathbf{x}_n \in \mathbb{R}^d$ and compute the second moment matrix $A = \sum_{i} \mathbf{x}_i \mathbf{x}_i^{\top}$. If we want to compute the SVD in a differentially private way, one approach is to add noise $E$ to the second moment matrix to form $\hat{A} = A + E$ such that $\hat{A}$ is a differentially private version of $A$. Then by postprocessing invariance, the SVD of $\hat{A}$ is also differentially private.

The motivation for our work was twofold: 1) we wanted to see how theoretically “optimal” algorithms performed on real data sets, especially for suggested settings of the parameters, and 2) we wanted to propose a good $(\epsilon,0)$-differentially private algorithm? What is wrong with $\delta > 0$? In some application domains, I have found that the notion of a “failure probability” is not compatible with practitioners’t (often lawyer-driven) policy requirements. Concentrated DP and newer concepts still keep the $\delta > 0$, so they might not fly either. Plus, it’s a slightly more challenging and interesting mathematical problem.

A very good $(\epsilon,\delta)$ choice for $E$ is to choose the entries to be i.i.d. Gaussian on the diagonal and above and copy entries below the diagonal such that $E$ is symmetric. This is the Analyze Gauss (AG) algorithm of Dwork et al. Although $\hat{A}$ is symmetric, it’s no longer positive semidefinite (PSD). However, this gives order-optimal guarantees on utility. Taking that as a cue, we wanted to preserve the PSD property in $\hat{A}$, so we proposed adding noise with a Wishart distribution, which corresponds to generating an i.i.d. rectangular $d \times p$ Gaussian matrix $\latex Z$ and settting $E = Z Z^{\top}$. This generates a PSD perturbation fo $\hat{A}$ and has pretty good utility guarantees as well.

Unfortunately, the Wishart perturbation is blatantly non-private because the image under the perturbation is a PSD cone starting from $A$, and for $A$ and $A'$ coming from neighboring databases, the cones are not the same. As a trivial example, suppose $A = \mathbf{x} \mathbf{x}^{\top}$ and $A' = \mathbf{0}$. Hafiz has written up a more formal description. Because differential privacy requires the support of the output distribution under different inputs to coincide, it is difficult to create a (data-independent) additive perturbation that preserves the PSD property. The exponential mechanism works, but is not additive.

In the end, I was rather excited about the empirical performance (c.f. goal 1) above) and we were close to the deadline so I did not do a proper job checking the technical results in our rush to submit. I’m making this a teachable moment for myself but wanted to make sure there was a public, findable version of this retraction so that people don’t continue to build on our results. What we learned from 1) is that designing practical PCA methods for reasonable values of $(\epsilon,\delta)$ is still challenging — many data sets do not have the sample sizes needed to make differential privacy practical. The solution may be to design more complex multi-stage pipeline, revisit what we can assume about the data space and neighborhood relations, or come up with better $(\epsilon,0)$ algorithms that pass muster for the applications when nonzero $\delta$ is unacceptable.