On the Generalization Properties of Differential Privacy

April 22, 2015 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐Ÿ› arXiv.org

๐Ÿ‘ป CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Kobbi Nissim, Uri Stemmer arXiv ID 1504.05800 Category cs.LG: Machine Learning Cross-listed cs.CR Citations 39 Venue arXiv.org Last Checked 6 months ago
Abstract
A new line of work, started with Dwork et al., studies the task of answering statistical queries using a sample and relates the problem to the concept of differential privacy. By the Hoeffding bound, a sample of size $O(\log k/ฮฑ^2)$ suffices to answer $k$ non-adaptive queries within error $ฮฑ$, where the answers are computed by evaluating the statistical queries on the sample. This argument fails when the queries are chosen adaptively (and can hence depend on the sample). Dwork et al. showed that if the answers are computed with $(ฮต,ฮด)$-differential privacy then $O(ฮต)$ accuracy is guaranteed with probability $1-O(ฮด^ฮต)$. Using the Private Multiplicative Weights mechanism, they concluded that the sample size can still grow polylogarithmically with the $k$. Very recently, Bassily et al. presented an improved bound and showed that (a variant of) the private multiplicative weights algorithm can answer $k$ adaptively chosen statistical queries using sample complexity that grows logarithmically in $k$. However, their results no longer hold for every differentially private algorithm, and require modifying the private multiplicative weights algorithm in order to obtain their high probability bounds. We greatly simplify the results of Dwork et al. and improve on the bound by showing that differential privacy guarantees $O(ฮต)$ accuracy with probability $1-O(ฮด\log(1/ฮต)/ฮต)$. It would be tempting to guess that an $(ฮต,ฮด)$-differentially private computation should guarantee $O(ฮต)$ accuracy with probability $1-O(ฮด)$. However, we show that this is not the case, and that our bound is tight (up to logarithmic factors).
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

๐Ÿ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt โ€” Machine Learning

Died the same way โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ป Ghosted