Wasserman Zhou 2010 - A Statistical Framework for Differential Privacy - Overview

Summary

Wasserman and Zhou re-read differential privacy in statistical language: a data release mechanism is a conditional distribution , DP caps the power of any hypothesis test about one individual at for level , and mechanisms are compared by the rate of convergence of the released data’s empirical distribution or density to the truth. Perturbing histogram counts with Laplace noise attains the minimax rate , whereas smoothed-histogram and exponential-mechanism releases are slower; the simulation shows the constants (noise inflation of 10x or more) matter as much as rates.

Overview

Authors / venue. Larry Wasserman (Carnegie Mellon) and Shuheng Zhou (ETH Zurich). A Statistical Framework for Differential Privacy, JASA 105(489), 2010; arXiv:0811.2501v2 (42 pages). Research context: inspired by Blum, Ligett and Roth (2008), who gave a learning-theory approach to non-interactive release.

Question. Given i.i.d. data on , which -DP mechanisms yield released data from which (its cdf or density ) can be estimated well, and at what rate?

Contributions.

  1. DP phrased as a statistical constraint on hypothesis tests (Thm. 2.4) and as a statement about (Def. 2.3).
  2. A notion of informative mechanisms: consistency and -informativeness measured by (Def. 3.1), plus an impossibility result: no DP mechanism is consistent in KS distance for all (Thm. 3.2).
  3. Two histogram-based releases (smoothed, perturbed) analysed under KS and distance (Thms. 4.1-4.4).
  4. A general accuracy bound for the exponential mechanism in terms of small ball probabilities (Thm. 5.3), applied to the KS distance, the mean, and Sobolev density estimation (Thms. 5.4, 6.2).
  5. A simulation (Beta(10,10)) showing that constants and the bin count matter far more for private than for non-private histograms (Sec. 7).

Key results at a glance. Rates for data in , Lipschitz density, smoothing parameter chosen optimally (Table 1 of the paper):

Distancesmoothed histogramperturbed histogramexponential mechanismminimax rate
(squared)NA
Kolmogorov-Smirnov ( for )

Main Content

Source Map

Paper sectionPages (arXiv)Covered in
Abstract, 1 Introduction, literature on disclosure limitation1-3Wasserman Zhou 2010 - Setup, Data Release Mechanisms and Differential Privacy
1.1 Summary of Results (Tables 1-2)3-4this note; Wasserman Zhou 2010 - Rate Tables, Simulation and Open Questions
2 Differential Privacy (setup, Ex. 2.1, Def. 2.2-2.3, exponential mechanism definition, Lemma 2.6)4-7Wasserman Zhou 2010 - Setup, Data Release Mechanisms and Differential Privacy
Thm. 2.4 (testing power), Bayes factor remark, Thm. 2.56-7Wasserman Zhou 2010 - Differential Privacy as a Hypothesis-Testing Constraint
3 Informative Mechanisms (Def. 3.1, Thm. 3.2)8-9Wasserman Zhou 2010 - Informative Mechanisms and the Impossibility Theorem
4 Sampling From a Histogram, 4.1 smoothed (Thm. 4.1-4.3), 4.2 perturbed (Thm. 4.4), Machanavajjhala et al. comparison9-13Wasserman Zhou 2010 - Histogram Release Mechanisms
5 Exponential Mechanism, Lemma 5.1, Def. 5.2, Thm. 5.313-14Wasserman Zhou 2010 - Exponential Mechanism and Small Ball Probabilities
5.1 KS distance (Thm. 5.4), 5.2 The mean15Wasserman Zhou 2010 - Exponential Mechanism and Small Ball Probabilities
6 Orthogonal Series Density Estimation (Lemma 6.1, Thm. 6.2, 6.3)15-17Wasserman Zhou 2010 - Orthogonal Series Density Estimation
7 Example (Figure 1)18-19Wasserman Zhou 2010 - Rate Tables, Simulation and Open Questions
8 Conclusion and open questions19-20Wasserman Zhou 2010 - Rate Tables, Simulation and Open Questions
9.1-9.2 Proofs of Thm. 2.4, Lemma 2.620Wasserman Zhou 2010 - Differential Privacy as a Hypothesis-Testing Constraint, Wasserman Zhou 2010 - Setup, Data Release Mechanisms and Differential Privacy
9.3 Proof of Thm. 3.221Wasserman Zhou 2010 - Informative Mechanisms and the Impossibility Theorem
9.4-9.7 Proofs of Thm. 4.1-4.421-28Wasserman Zhou 2010 - Histogram Release Mechanisms
9.8-9.10 Proofs of Thm. 5.3, Lemma 5.1, Thm. 5.428-32Wasserman Zhou 2010 - Exponential Mechanism and Small Ball Probabilities
9.11 Proofs of Lemma 6.1, Thm. 6.2, Lemma 9.332-37Wasserman Zhou 2010 - Orthogonal Series Density Estimation
References37-42not captured (bibliography); key works named inline

Examples

The central quantitative example is the Beta(10,10) histogram simulation (Figure 1), reproduced and re-run with code in Wasserman Zhou 2010 - Rate Tables, Simulation and Open Questions; the hypothesis-testing bound is illustrated with randomized response in Wasserman Zhou 2010 - Differential Privacy as a Hypothesis-Testing Constraint.

Connections

  • Marketing measurement. The paper’s lesson for anyone consuming privatised aggregates is statistical: (i) the noise law is public, so the privatised histogram is an additive-error observation and can be modelled, not just tolerated (the paper leaves “how a data analyst can use knowledge of to improve inferences” to future work); (ii) the loss is governed by the ratio of bins to sample size times privacy: more granular cells (campaign x day x geo) inflate error quickly; (iii) rates hide constants and in the Beta(10,10) simulation (re-run in the rates note) perturbation inflated integrated squared error by factors from about 1x to about 20x even though the method attains the minimax rate. See Geo-Experiment Design and Power Analysis and Bayesian Estimation and Priors for MMM.
  • Nonparametric density estimation background: Nonparametric Models Overview.

See Also