Advertisement

The Complexity of Computing the Optimal Composition of Differential Privacy

  • Jack Murtagh
  • Salil Vadhan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9562)

Abstract

In the study of differential privacy, composition theorems (starting with the original paper of Dwork, McSherry, Nissim, and Smith (TCC’06)) bound the degradation of privacy when composing several differentially private algorithms. Kairouz, Oh, and Viswanath (ICML’15) showed how to compute the optimal bound for composing k arbitrary \((\epsilon ,\delta )\)-differentially private algorithms. We characterize the optimal composition for the more general case of k arbitrary \((\epsilon _{1},\delta _{1}),\ldots ,(\epsilon _{k},\delta _{k})\)-differentially private algorithms where the privacy parameters may for each algorithm in the composition. We show that computing the optimal composition in general is #P-complete. Since computing optimal composition exactly is infeasible (unless FP=#P), we give an approximation algorithm that computes the composition to arbitrary accuracy in polynomial time. The algorithm is a modification of Dyer’s dynamic programming approach to approximately counting solutions to knapsack problems (STOC’03).

Keywords

Differential privacy Composition Computational complexity Approximation algorithms 

References

  1. 1.
    Crosas, M.: The dataverse network\(\textregistered \): an open-source application for sharing, discovering and preserving data. D-lib Mag. 17(1), 2 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dwork, C., Kenthapadi, K., McSherry, F., Mironov, I., Naor, M.: Our data, ourselves: privacy via distributed noise generation. In: Vaudenay, S. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4004, pp. 486–503. Springer, Heidelberg (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dwork, C., McSherry, F., Nissim, K., Smith, A.: Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis. In: Halevi, S., Rabin, T. (eds.) TCC 2006. LNCS, vol. 3876, pp. 265–284. Springer, Heidelberg (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dwork, C., Roth, A.: The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy. Found. Trends Theor. Comput. Sci. 9(3–4), 211–407 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dwork, C., Rothblum, G.N., Vadhan, S.: Boosting and differential privacy. In: 51st IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 51–60. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dyer, M.: Approximate counting by dynamic programming. In: 35th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 693–699. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ehrgott, M.: Approximation algorithms for combinatorial multicriteria optimization problems. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 7(1), 5–31 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    King, G.: An introduction to the dataverse network as an infrastructure for data sharing. Sociol. Methods Res. 36(2), 173–199 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kairouz, P., Oh, S., Viswanath. P.: The composition theorem for differential privacy. In: 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 1376–1385 (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Murtagh, J., Vadhan, S.: The Complexity of Computing the Optimal Composition of Differential Privacy (2015). http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.03113
  11. 11.
    Warner, S.L.: Randomized response: a survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 60(309), 63–69 (1965)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Cryptologic Research 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Research on Computation and Society, John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied SciencesHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations