We investigate the direct-sum problem in the context of differentially private PAC learning: What is the sample complexity of solving k learning tasks simultaneously under differential privacy, and how does this cost compare to that of solving k learning tasks without privacy? In our setting, an individual example consists of a domain element x labeled by k unknown concepts (c1,...,ck). The goal of a multi-learner is to output k hypotheses (h1,...,hk) that generalize the input examples. Without concern for privacy, the sample complexity needed to simultaneously learn @math concepts is essentially the same as needed for learning a single concept. Under differential privacy, the basic strategy of learning each hypothesis independently yields sample complexity that grows polynomially with k. For some concept classes, we give multi-learners that require fewer samples than the basic strategy. Unfortunately, however, we also give lower bounds showing that even for very simple concept classes, the sample cost of private multi-learning must grow polynomially in k.
Differential privacy was defined in @cite_1 and the relaxation to approximate differential privacy is from @cite_18 . Most related to our work is the work on private learning and its sample complexity @cite_38 @cite_3 @cite_4 @cite_0 @cite_42 @cite_26 @cite_24 @cite_8 @cite_17 @cite_39 and the early work on sanitization @cite_32 . That many natural'' learning tasks can be performed privately was shown in the early work of @cite_38 and @cite_3 . A characterization for the sample complexity of pure-private learners was given in @cite_26 , in terms of a new combinatorial measure -- the Representation Dimension , that is, given a class @math , the number of samples needed and sufficient for privately learning @math is @math . Building on @cite_26 , Feldman and Xiao @cite_8 showed an equivalence between the representation dimension of a concept @math and the randomized one-way communication complexity of the evaluation problem for concepts from @math . Using this equivalence they separated the sample complexity of pure-private learners from that of non-private ones.
@cite_38 @cite_18 @cite_26 @cite_4 @cite_8 @cite_42 @cite_1 @cite_32 @cite_3 @cite_39 @cite_0 @cite_24 @cite_17
1603362050 2949611647 2962958653 2171200367 2099259603 2071511328 2279913547 2096223017 1886087434 2564029303 1493407996 2260333220 2964237819 2029905190 2294907105 43706173 2902208421 2951827590 2154086287 2951448804
In this work we analyze the sample complexity of classification by differentially private algorithms. Differential privacy is a strong and well-studied notion of privacy introduced by (2006) that ensures that the output of an algorithm leaks little information about the data point provided by any of the participating individuals. Sample complexity of private PAC and agnostic learning was studied in a number of prior works starting with (, 2008) but a number of basic questions still remain open, most notably whether learning with privacy requires more samples than learning without privacy. We show that the sample complexity of learning with (pure) differential privacy can be arbitrarily higher than the sample complexity of learning without the privacy constraint or the sample complexity of learning with approximate differential privacy. Our second contribution and the main tool is an equivalence between the sample complexity of (pure) differentially private learning of a concept class @math (or @math ) and the randomized one-way communication complexity of the evaluation problem for concepts from @math . Using this equivalence we prove the following bounds: 1. @math , where @math is the Littlestone's (1987) dimension characterizing the number of mistakes in the online-mistake-bound learning model. Known bounds on @math then imply that @math can be much higher than the VC-dimension of @math . 2. For any @math , there exists a class @math such that @math but @math . 3. For any @math , there exists a class @math such that the sample complexity of (pure) @math -differentially private PAC learning is @math but the sample complexity of the relaxed @math -differentially private PAC learning is @math . This resolves an open problem of (2013b). We compare the sample complexity of private learning [ 2008] and sanitization [ 2008] under pure @math -differential privacy [ TCC 2006] and approximate @math -differential privacy [ Eurocrypt 2006]. We show that the sample complexity of these tasks under approximate differential privacy can be significantly lower than that under pure differential privacy. We define a family of optimization problems, which we call Quasi-Concave Promise Problems, that generalizes some of our considered tasks. We observe that a quasi-concave promise problem can be privately approximated using a solution to a smaller instance of a quasi-concave promise problem. This allows us to construct an efficient recursive algorithm solving such problems privately. Specifically, we construct private learners for point functions, threshold functions, and axis-aligned rectangles in high dimension. Similarly, we construct sanitizers for point functions and threshold functions. We also examine the sample complexity of label-private learners, a relaxation of private learning where the learner is required to only protect the privacy of the labels in the sample. We show that the VC dimension completely characterizes the sample complexity of such learners, that is, the sample complexity of learning with label privacy is equal (up to constants) to learning without privacy. In this work we analyze the sample complexity of classification by differentially private algorithms. Differential privacy is a strong and well-studied notion of privacy introduced by [Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 3876, Springer, New York, 2006, pp. 265--284] that ensures that the output of an algorithm leaks little information about the data point provided by any of the participating individuals. Sample complexity of private probably approximately correct (PAC) and agnostic learning was studied in a number of prior works starting with [SIAM J. Comput., 40 (2011), pp. 793--826]. However, a number of basic questions remain open [A. Beimel, S. P. Kasiviswanathan, and K. Nissim, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 5978, Springer, New York, 2006, pp. 437--454; K. Chaudhuri and D. Hsu, Proceedings of Conference in Learning Theory, 2011, pp. 155--186; A. Beimel, K. Nissim, and U. Stemmer, Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science, 2013, pp. 9... We prove new upper and lower bounds on the sample complexity of (a#x03B5;, a#x03B4;) differentially private algorithms for releasing approximate answers to threshold functions. A threshold function cx over a totally ordered domain X evaluates to cx(y) = 1 if y a#x2264; x, and evaluates to 0 otherwise. We give the first nontrivial lower bound for releasing thresholds with (a#x03B5;, a#x03B4;) differential privacy, showing that the task is impossible over an infinite domain X, and moreover requires sample complexity n a#x2265; (log* |X|), which grows with the size of the domain. Inspired by the techniques used to prove this lower bound, we give an algorithm for releasing thresholds with n a#x2264; 2(1+o(1)) log* |X| samples. This improves the previous best upper bound of 8(1+o(1)) log* |X| (, RANDOM'13). Our sample complexity upper and lower bounds also apply to the tasks of learning distributions with respect to Kolmogorov distance and of properly PAC learning thresholds with differential privacy. The lower bound gives the first separation between the sample complexity of properly learning a concept class with (a#x03B5;, a#x03B4;) differential privacy and learning without privacy. For properly learning thresholds in 'dimensions, this lower bound extends to n a#x2265; (l a#x2219; log* |X|). To obtain our results, we give reductions in both directions from releasing and properly learning thresholds and the simpler interior point problem. Given a database D of elements from X, the interior point problem asks for an element between the smallest and largest elements in D. We introduce new recursive constructions for bounding the sample complexity of the interior point problem, as well as further reductions and techniques for proving impossibility results for other basic problems in differential privacy. Differential privacy is a robust privacy standard that has been successfully applied to a range of data analysis tasks. But despite much recent work, optimal strategies for answering a collection of related queries are not known. We propose the matrix mechanism, a new algorithm for answering a workload of predicate counting queries. Given a workload, the mechanism requests answers to a different set of queries, called a query strategy, which are answered using the standard Laplace mechanism. Noisy answers to the workload queries are then derived from the noisy answers to the strategy queries. This two stage process can result in a more complex correlated noise distribution that preserves differential privacy but increases accuracy. We provide a formal analysis of the error of query answers produced by the mechanism and investigate the problem of computing the optimal query strategy in support of a given workload. We show this problem can be formulated as a rank-constrained semidefinite program. Finally, we analyze two seemingly distinct techniques, whose similar behavior is explained by viewing them as instances of the matrix mechanism. Differential privacy has emerged as one of the most promising privacy models for private data release. It can be used to release different types of data, and, in particular, histograms, which provide useful summaries of a dataset. Several differentially private histogram releasing schemes have been proposed recently. However, most of them directly add noise to the histogram counts, resulting in undesirable accuracy. In this paper, we propose two sanitization techniques that exploit the inherent redundancy of real-life datasets in order to boost the accuracy of histograms. They lossily compress the data and sanitize the compressed data. Our first scheme is an optimization of the Fourier Perturbation Algorithm (FPA) presented in RN10 . It improves the accuracy of the initial FPA by a factor of 10. The other scheme relies on clustering and exploits the redundancy between bins. Our extensive experimental evaluation over various real-life and synthetic datasets demonstrates that our techniques preserve very accurate distributions and considerably improve the accuracy of range queries over attributed histograms. The traditional notion of generalization---i.e., learning a hypothesis whose empirical error is close to its true error---is surprisingly brittle. As has recently been noted in [DFH+15b], even if several algorithms have this guarantee in isolation, the guarantee need not hold if the algorithms are composed adaptively. In this paper, we study three notions of generalization---increasing in strength---that are robust to postprocessing and amenable to adaptive composition, and examine the relationships between them. We call the weakest such notion Robust Generalization. A second, intermediate, notion is the stability guarantee known as differential privacy. The strongest guarantee we consider we call Perfect Generalization. We prove that every hypothesis class that is PAC learnable is also PAC learnable in a robustly generalizing fashion, with almost the same sample complexity. It was previously known that differentially private algorithms satisfy robust generalization. In this paper, we show that robust generalization is a strictly weaker concept, and that there is a learning task that can be carried out subject to robust generalization guarantees, yet cannot be carried out subject to differential privacy. We also show that perfect generalization is a strictly stronger guarantee than differential privacy, but that, nevertheless, many learning tasks can be carried out subject to the guarantees of perfect generalization. In 2008, Kasiviswanathan el al. defined private learning as a combination of PAC learning and differential privacy [16]. Informally, a private learner is applied to a collection of labeled individual information and outputs a hypothesis while preserving the privacy of each individual. gave a generic construction of private learners for (finite) concept classes, with sample complexity logarithmic in the size of the concept class. This sample complexity is higher than what is needed for non-private learners, hence leaving open the possibility that the sample complexity of private learning may be sometimes significantly higher than that of non-private learning. We give a combinatorial characterization of the sample size sufficient and necessary to privately learn a class of concepts. This characterization is analogous to the well known characterization of the sample complexity of non-private learning in terms of the VC dimension of the concept class. We introduce the notion of probabilistic representation of a concept class, and our new complexity measure RepDim corresponds to the size of the smallest probabilistic representation of the concept class. We show that any private learning algorithm for a concept class C with sample complexity m implies RepDim(C) = O(m), and that there exists a private learning algorithm with sample complexity m = O(RepDim(C)). We further demonstrate that a similar characterization holds for the database size needed for privately computing a large class of optimization problems and also for the well studied problem of private data release. We consider the problem of Bayesian learning on sensitive datasets and present two simple but somewhat surprising results that connect Bayesian learning to "differential privacy", a cryptographic approach to protect individual-level privacy while permitting database-level utility. Specifically, we show that under standard assumptions, getting one sample from a posterior distribution is differentially private "for free"; and this sample as a statistical estimator is often consistent, near optimal, and computationally tractable. Similarly but separately, we show that a recent line of work that use stochastic gradient for Hybrid Monte Carlo (HMC) sampling also preserve differentially privacy with minor or no modifications of the algorithmic procedure at all, these observations lead to an "anytime" algorithm for Bayesian learning under privacy constraint. We demonstrate that it performs much better than the state-of-the-art differential private methods on synthetic and real datasets. This paper investigates the relation between three different notions of privacy: identifiability, differential privacy, and mutual-information privacy. Under a unified privacy-distortion framework, where the distortion is defined to be the expected Hamming distance between the input and output databases, we establish some fundamental connections between these three privacy notions. Given a maximum allowable distortion @math , we define the privacy-distortion functions @math , @math , and @math to be the smallest (most private best) identifiability level, differential privacy level, and mutual information between the input and the output, respectively. We characterize @math and @math , and prove that @math for @math within certain range, where @math is a constant determined by the prior distribution of the original database @math , and diminishes to zero when @math is uniformly distributed. Furthermore, we show that @math and @math can be achieved by the same mechanism for @math within certain range, i.e., there is a mechanism that simultaneously minimizes the identifiability level and achieves the best mutual-information privacy. Based on these two connections, we prove that this mutual-information optimal mechanism satisfies @math -differential privacy with @math . The results in this paper reveal some consistency between two worst case notions of privacy, namely, identifiability and differential privacy, and an average notion of privacy, mutual-information privacy. The definition of differential privacy has recently emerged as a leading standard of privacy guarantees for algorithms on statistical databases. We offer several relaxations of the definition which require privacy guarantees to hold only against efficient--i.e., computationally-bounded--adversaries. We establish various relationships among these notions, and in doing so, we observe their close connection with the theory of pseudodense sets by [1]. We extend the dense model theorem of to demonstrate equivalence between two definitions (indistinguishability- and simulatability-based) of computational differential privacy. Our computational analogues of differential privacy seem to allow for more accurate constructions than the standard information-theoretic analogues. In particular, in the context of private approximation of the distance between two vectors, we present a differentially-private protocol for computing the approximation, and contrast it with a substantially more accurate protocol that is only computationally differentially private. We investigate the direct-sum problem in the context of differentially private PAC learning: What is the sample complexity of solving k learning tasks simultaneously under differential privacy, and how does this cost compare to that of solving k learning tasks without privacy? In our setting, an individual example consists of a domain element x labeled by k unknown concepts (c1,...,ck). The goal of a multi-learner is to output k hypotheses (h1,...,hk) that generalize the input examples. Without concern for privacy, the sample complexity needed to simultaneously learn @math concepts is essentially the same as needed for learning a single concept. Under differential privacy, the basic strategy of learning each hypothesis independently yields sample complexity that grows polynomially with k. For some concept classes, we give multi-learners that require fewer samples than the basic strategy. Unfortunately, however, we also give lower bounds showing that even for very simple concept classes, the sample cost of private multi-learning must grow polynomially in k. While machine learning has proven to be a powerful data-driven solution to many real-life problems, its use in sensitive domains has been limited due to privacy concerns. A popular approach known as differential privacy offers provable privacy guarantees, but it is often observed in practice that it could substantially hamper learning accuracy. In this paper we study the learnability (whether a problem can be learned by any algorithm) under Vapnik's general learning setting with differential privacy constraint, and reveal some intricate relationships between privacy, stability and learnability. In particular, we show that a problem is privately learnable if an only if there is a private algorithm that asymptotically minimizes the empirical risk (AERM). In contrast, for non-private learning AERM alone is not sufficient for learnability. This result suggests that when searching for private learning algorithms, we can restrict the search to algorithms that are AERM. In light of this, we propose a conceptual procedure that always finds a universally consistent algorithm whenever the problem is learnable under privacy constraint. We also propose a generic and practical algorithm and show that under very general conditions it privately learns a wide class of learning problems. Lastly, we extend some of the results to the more practical (e, δ)-differential privacy and establish the existence of a phase-transition on the class of problems that are approximately privately learnable with respect to how small δ needs to be. We study differential privacy in a distributed setting where two parties would like to perform analysis of their joint data while preserving privacy for both datasets. Our results imply almost tight lower bounds on the accuracy of such data analyses, both for specific natural functions (such as Hamming distance) and in general. Our bounds expose a sharp contrast between the two-party setting and the simpler client-server setting (where privacy guarantees are one-sided). In addition, those bounds demonstrate a dramatic gap between the accuracy that can be obtained by differentially private data analysis versus the accuracy obtainable when privacy is relaxed to a computational variant of differential privacy. The first proof technique we develop demonstrates a connection between differential privacy and deterministic extraction from Santha-Vazirani sources. A second connection we expose indicates that the ability to approximate a function by a low-error differentially private protocol is strongly related to the ability to approximate it by a low communication protocol. (The connection goes in both directions.) Private regression has received attention from both database and security communities. Recent work by (USENIX Security 2014) analyzed the functional mechanism ( VLDB 2012) for training linear regression models over medical data. Unfortunately, they found that model accuracy is already unacceptable with differential privacy when @math . We address this issue, presenting an explicit connection between differential privacy and stable learning theory through which a substantially better privacy utility tradeoff can be obtained. Perhaps more importantly, our theory reveals that the most basic mechanism in differential privacy, output perturbation, can be used to obtain a better tradeoff for all convex-Lipschitz-bounded learning tasks. Since output perturbation is simple to implement, it means that our approach is potentially widely applicable in practice. We go on to apply it on the same medical data as used by Encouragingly, we achieve accurate models even for @math . In the last part of this paper, we study the impact of our improved differentially private mechanisms on model inversion attacks, a privacy attack introduced by We observe that the improved tradeoff makes the resulting differentially private model more susceptible to inversion attacks. We analyze this phenomenon formally. Differential privacy is a notion of privacy that has become very popular in the database community. Roughly, the idea is that a randomized query mechanism provides sufficient privacy protection if the ratio between the probabilities of two different entries to originate a certain answer is bound by e^e. In the fields of anonymity and information flow there is a similar concern for controlling information leakage, i.e. limiting the possibility of inferring the secret information from the observables. In recent years, researchers have proposed to quantify the leakage in terms of the information-theoretic notion of mutual information. There are two main approaches that fall in this category: One based on Shannon entropy, and one based on Renyi's min entropy. The latter has connection with the so-called Bayes risk, which expresses the probability of guessing the secret. In this paper, we show how to model the query system in terms of an information-theoretic channel, and we compare the notion of differential privacy with that of mutual information. We show that the notion of differential privacy is strictly stronger, in the sense that it implies a bound on the mutual information, but not viceversa. Motivated by settings in which predictive models may be required to be non-discriminatory with respect to certain attributes (such as race), but even collecting the sensitive attribute may be forbidden or restricted, we initiate the study of fair learning under the constraint of differential privacy. We design two learning algorithms that simultaneously promise differential privacy and equalized odds, a 'fairness' condition that corresponds to equalizing false positive and negative rates across protected groups. Our first algorithm is a private implementation of the equalized odds post-processing approach of [, 2016]. This algorithm is appealingly simple, but must be able to use protected group membership explicitly at test time, which can be viewed as a form of 'disparate treatment'. Our second algorithm is a differentially private version of the oracle-efficient in-processing approach of [, 2018] that can be used to find the optimal fair classifier, given access to a subroutine that can solve the original (not necessarily fair) learning problem. This algorithm is more complex but need not have access to protected group membership at test time. We identify new tradeoffs between fairness, accuracy, and privacy that emerge only when requiring all three properties, and show that these tradeoffs can be milder if group membership may be used at test time. We conclude with a brief experimental evaluation. Local differential privacy has recently surfaced as a strong measure of privacy in contexts where personal information remains private even from data analysts. Working in a setting where both the data providers and data analysts want to maximize the utility of statistical analyses performed on the released data, we study the fundamental trade-off between local differential privacy and utility. This trade-off is formulated as a constrained optimization problem: maximize utility subject to local differential privacy constraints. We introduce a combinatorial family of extremal privatization mechanisms, which we call staircase mechanisms, and show that it contains the optimal privatization mechanisms for a broad class of information theoretic utilities such as mutual information and @math -divergences. We further prove that for any utility function and any privacy level, solving the privacy-utility maximization problem is equivalent to solving a finite-dimensional linear program, the outcome of which is the optimal staircase mechanism. However, solving this linear program can be computationally expensive since it has a number of variables that is exponential in the size of the alphabet the data lives in. To account for this, we show that two simple privatization mechanisms, the binary and randomized response mechanisms, are universally optimal in the low and high privacy regimes, and well approximate the intermediate regime. A mechanism for releasing information about a statistical database with sensitive data must resolve a trade-off between utility and privacy. Publishing fully accurate information maximizes utility while minimizing privacy, while publishing random noise accomplishes the opposite. Privacy can be rigorously quantified using the framework of differential privacy, which requires that a mechanism's output distribution is nearly the same whether or not a given database row is included or excluded. The goal of this paper is strong and general utility guarantees, subject to differential privacy. We pursue mechanisms that guarantee near-optimal utility to every potential user, independent of its side information (modeled as a prior distribution over query results) and preferences (modeled via a loss function). Our main result is: for each fixed count query and differential privacy level, there is a geometric mechanism M* -- a discrete variant of the simple and well-studied Laplace mechanism -- that is simultaneously expected loss-minimizing for every possible user, subject to the differential privacy constraint. This is an extremely strong utility guarantee: every potential user u, no matter what its side information and preferences, derives as much utility from M* as from interacting with a differentially private mechanism Mu that is optimally tailored to u. More precisely, for every user u there is an optimal mechanism Mu for it that factors into a user-independent part (the geometric mechanism M*) followed by user-specific post-processing that can be delegated to the user itself. The first part of our proof of this result characterizes the optimal differentially private mechanism for a fixed but arbitrary user in terms of a certain basic feasible solution to a linear program with constraints that encode differential privacy. The second part shows that all of the relevant vertices of this polytope (ranging over all possible users) are derivable from the geometric mechanism via suitable remappings of its range. A mechanism for releasing information about a statistical database with sensitive data must resolve a trade-off between utility and privacy. Privacy can be rigorously quantified using the framework of differential privacy , which requires that a mechanism's output distribution is nearly the same whether or not a given database row is included or excluded. The goal of this paper is strong and general utility guarantees, subject to differential privacy. We pursue mechanisms that guarantee near-optimal utility to every potential user, independent of its side information (modeled as a prior distribution over query results) and preferences (modeled via a loss function). Our main result is: for each fixed count query and differential privacy level, there is a geometric mechanism @math -- a discrete variant of the simple and well-studied Laplace mechanism -- that is simultaneously expected loss-minimizing for every possible user, subject to the differential privacy constraint. This is an extremely strong utility guarantee: every potential user @math , no matter what its side information and preferences, derives as much utility from @math as from interacting with a differentially private mechanism @math that is optimally tailored to @math .