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.
- DP phrased as a statistical constraint on hypothesis tests (Thm. 2.4) and as a statement about (Def. 2.3).
- 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).
- Two histogram-based releases (smoothed, perturbed) analysed under KS and distance (Thms. 4.1-4.4).
- 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).
- 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):
| Distance | smoothed histogram | perturbed histogram | exponential mechanism | minimax rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (squared) | NA | |||
| Kolmogorov-Smirnov | ( for ) |
Main Content
Source Map
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
- Dwork 2006 - Calibrating Noise to Sensitivity - Overview — the Laplace mechanism used in the perturbed histogram.
- Dwork Roth 2014 - Algorithmic Foundations of Differential Privacy Ch 1-3 - Overview — exponential mechanism and Laplace mechanism in textbook form.