26.1LGMar 22, 2023
Stability is Stable: Connections between Replicability, Privacy, and Adaptive GeneralizationMark Bun, Marco Gaboardi, Max Hopkins et al.
The notion of replicable algorithms was introduced in Impagliazzo et al. [STOC '22] to describe randomized algorithms that are stable under the resampling of their inputs. More precisely, a replicable algorithm gives the same output with high probability when its randomness is fixed and it is run on a new i.i.d. sample drawn from the same distribution. Using replicable algorithms for data analysis can facilitate the verification of published results by ensuring that the results of an analysis will be the same with high probability, even when that analysis is performed on a new data set. In this work, we establish new connections and separations between replicability and standard notions of algorithmic stability. In particular, we give sample-efficient algorithmic reductions between perfect generalization, approximate differential privacy, and replicability for a broad class of statistical problems. Conversely, we show any such equivalence must break down computationally: there exist statistical problems that are easy under differential privacy, but that cannot be solved replicably without breaking public-key cryptography. Furthermore, these results are tight: our reductions are statistically optimal, and we show that any computational separation between DP and replicability must imply the existence of one-way functions. Our statistical reductions give a new algorithmic framework for translating between notions of stability, which we instantiate to answer several open questions in replicability and privacy. This includes giving sample-efficient replicable algorithms for various PAC learning, distribution estimation, and distribution testing problems, algorithmic amplification of $δ$ in approximate DP, conversions from item-level to user-level privacy, and the existence of private agnostic-to-realizable learning reductions under structured distributions.
11.8LGNov 15, 2022
Differentially Private Sampling from DistributionsSofya Raskhodnikova, Satchit Sivakumar, Adam Smith et al.
We initiate an investigation of private sampling from distributions. Given a dataset with $n$ independent observations from an unknown distribution $P$, a sampling algorithm must output a single observation from a distribution that is close in total variation distance to $P$ while satisfying differential privacy. Sampling abstracts the goal of generating small amounts of realistic-looking data. We provide tight upper and lower bounds for the dataset size needed for this task for three natural families of distributions: arbitrary distributions on $\{1,\ldots ,k\}$, arbitrary product distributions on $\{0,1\}^d$, and product distributions on $\{0,1\}^d$ with bias in each coordinate bounded away from 0 and 1. We demonstrate that, in some parameter regimes, private sampling requires asymptotically fewer observations than learning a description of $P$ nonprivately; in other regimes, however, private sampling proves to be as difficult as private learning. Notably, for some classes of distributions, the overhead in the number of observations needed for private learning compared to non-private learning is completely captured by the number of observations needed for private sampling.
15.8DSDec 1, 2021
The Price of Differential Privacy under Continual ObservationPalak Jain, Sofya Raskhodnikova, Satchit Sivakumar et al.
We study the accuracy of differentially private mechanisms in the continual release model. A continual release mechanism receives a sensitive dataset as a stream of $T$ inputs and produces, after receiving each input, an accurate output on the obtained inputs. In contrast, a batch algorithm receives the data as one batch and produces a single output. We provide the first strong lower bounds on the error of continual release mechanisms. In particular, for two fundamental problems that are widely studied and used in the batch model, we show that the worst case error of every continual release algorithm is $\tilde Ω(T^{1/3})$ times larger than that of the best batch algorithm. Previous work shows only a polylogarithimic (in $T$) gap between the worst case error achievable in these two models; further, for many problems, including the summation of binary attributes, the polylogarithmic gap is tight (Dwork et al., 2010; Chan et al., 2010). Our results show that problems closely related to summation -- specifically, those that require selecting the largest of a set of sums -- are fundamentally harder in the continual release model than in the batch model. Our lower bounds assume only that privacy holds for streams fixed in advance (the "nonadaptive" setting). However, we provide matching upper bounds that hold in a model where privacy is required even for adaptively selected streams. This model may be of independent interest.
5.5LGJul 22, 2021
Multiclass versus Binary Differentially Private PAC LearningMark Bun, Marco Gaboardi, Satchit Sivakumar
We show a generic reduction from multiclass differentially private PAC learning to binary private PAC learning. We apply this transformation to a recently proposed binary private PAC learner to obtain a private multiclass learner with sample complexity that has a polynomial dependence on the multiclass Littlestone dimension and a poly-logarithmic dependence on the number of classes. This yields an exponential improvement in the dependence on both parameters over learners from previous work. Our proof extends the notion of $Ψ$-dimension defined in work of Ben-David et al. [JCSS '95] to the online setting and explores its general properties.