An information theorist's tour of differential privacy

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.10316
• Title: An information theorist's tour of differential privacy
• Authors: Anand D. Sarwate, Flavio P. Calmon, Oliver Kosut, Lalitha Sankar
• Classification: cs.IT cs.CR math.IT math.ST stat.TH
• Publication Date: October 11, 2024 (arXiv submission)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.10316

Abstract

Since its introduction in 2006, differential privacy has become the standard methodology for quantifying certain risks in sensitive data publication or shared analysis. At its core, differential privacy measures risk through divergences between probability distributions, a central theme in information theory. Differential privacy algorithms constitute a channel between underlying data and analytical outputs. From this perspective, the guarantees provided by differential privacy can be understood through the properties of this channel. This paper investigates several key connections between information theory and the formulation/application of differential privacy, providing "operational significance" for relevant information measures.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Background

1. Privacy Protection Requirements: With the advent of the big data era, how to publish useful data analysis results while protecting individual privacy has become a critical challenge
2. Lack of Theoretical Foundation: Existing privacy protection methods lack rigorous theoretical foundations and operational methods for quantifying risks
3. Cross-disciplinary Connections: Deep connections exist between differential privacy and information theory, but systematic theoretical analysis is lacking

Research Motivation

1. Theoretical Unification: Unified understanding of various concepts and mechanisms in differential privacy from an information-theoretic perspective
2. Operational Significance: Providing clear operational interpretations for information measures in differential privacy
3. Practical Guidance: Offering theoretical guidance for the design and optimization of differential privacy mechanisms

Core Contributions

1. Theoretical Framework Establishment: Systematically elucidates the connections between differential privacy and information theory, viewing differential privacy algorithms as channels
2. Hypothesis Testing Perspective: Reinterprets differential privacy definitions from a hypothesis testing viewpoint, providing operational understanding
3. f-Divergence Theory Application: In-depth analysis of the relationship between f-divergence and differential privacy, particularly hockey-stick divergence
4. Privacy Accounting Methods: Summarizes composition analysis methods based on privacy loss distribution (PLD)
5. Mechanism Optimization Theory: Provides an information-theoretic framework and concrete algorithms for differential privacy mechanism optimization

Methodology Details

Task Definition

The core task of this paper is to understand and analyze differential privacy from an information-theoretic perspective, specifically including:

• Input: Sensitive dataset D = (x₁, x₂, ..., xₙ)
• Output: Randomized output Y satisfying differential privacy guarantees
• Constraints: For any pair of adjacent datasets (D, D'), satisfying (ε, δ)-differential privacy

Theoretical Framework

1. Hypothesis Testing Perspective

Differential privacy can be understood as a binary hypothesis testing problem:

• H₀: Y ~ P_{Y|D}(y)
• H₁: Y ~ P_{Y|D'}(y)

where (ε, δ)-differential privacy is equivalent to the error trade-off curve satisfying:

P_FA + e^ε P_MD ≥ 1 - δ
e^ε P_FA + P_MD ≥ 1 - δ

2. Privacy Loss Random Variable (PLRV)

Define the privacy loss random variable as:

L_{D,D'} = log(dP_{Y|D}/dP_{Y|D'}(Y))

The expectation of PLRV equals the KL divergence:

E[L] = D_KL(P_{Y|D} || P_{Y|D'})  (when Y ~ P_{Y|D})

3. f-Divergence Connection

Unifying various privacy measures through f-divergence:

D_f(P || Q) = ∫_Y f(dP/dQ) dQ = E_Q[f(e^L)]

In particular, the hockey-stick divergence E_γ directly yields the δ parameter:

δ(ε) = sup_{D~D'} E_{e^ε}(P_{Y|D} || P_{Y|D'})

Technical Innovations

1. Unified Channel Perspective

Viewing differential privacy algorithms as channels from data to outputs, enabling the application of information-theoretic tools for analysis

2. Deep Application of Divergence Theory

Systematic use of f-divergence theory, particularly hockey-stick divergence, providing intuitive interpretations of differential privacy parameters

3. PLD-based Composition Analysis

Composition analysis based on privacy loss distribution, including:

• FFT-based accounting
• Tail bound methods
• Central limit theorem methods

Experimental Setup

Theoretical Analysis Framework

This paper is primarily theoretical work, validated through the following approaches:

1. Noise Mechanism Analysis

• Gaussian Noise: Analyzing error trade-off curves under different variances σ
• Laplace Noise: Analyzing privacy protection effects under different parameters λ
• Staircase Mechanism: Optimal ε-differential privacy mechanism under single composition

2. Optimization Problem Formulation

For query functions with sensitivity s, considering two classes of optimization:

Single Composition Optimization:

minimize max_{|a|≤s} max_z log(p_Z(z)/p_Z(z-a))
subject to E[c(Z)] ≤ C

Large Composition Regime Optimization:

minimize max_{|a|≤s} D_KL(p(z) || p(z-a))
subject to E[c(Z)] ≤ C

Evaluation Metrics

• Privacy Parameters: Tightness of (ε, δ) values
• Utility Loss: Expected cost Ec(Z)
• Composition Performance: Privacy loss accumulation under multiple queries

Experimental Results

Main Results

1. Noise Mechanism Comparison

• Gaussian Mechanism: Near-optimal in small sensitivity regime
• Laplace Mechanism: Traditional choice, but suboptimal
• Staircase Mechanism: Optimal solution under single composition, with piecewise constant density

2. Optimized Mechanism Performance

• Cactus Mechanism: Optimal mechanism in large composition regime, with "spike" distribution characteristics
• Schrödinger Mechanism: Optimal mechanism under small sensitivity, solved via Schrödinger equation-like approach

3. Privacy Accounting Precision

• FFT Method: Numerically exact but requires dominating measures
• Saddle Point Method: Analytically exact and handles adaptive composition
• CLT Method: Asymptotically optimal but potentially overly conservative

Theoretical Findings

1. Divergence Universality

All meaningful privacy measures can be expressed as functions of PLRV, demonstrating the universality of PLRV

2. Non-Gaussianity of Optimal Noise

In most cases, optimal privacy mechanisms are not Gaussian noise, but distributions with complex structures

3. Composition Complexity

Exact composition analysis is #P-complete computationally, requiring approximation methods

Related Work

Differential Privacy Foundations

• Original definition by Dwork et al. (2006)
• Various variants: Rényi DP, GDP, f-DP, etc.
• Applications: 2020 U.S. Census, industrial deployments

Information-Theoretic Connections

• Blackwell experiment comparison theory
• f-divergence theory (Csiszár, Ali-Silvey)
• Hypothesis testing and information measures

Privacy Accounting

• Basic composition theorems
• Advanced composition bounds
• Numerical and analytical methods

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Theoretical Unification: Differential privacy can be completely understood and analyzed through information-theoretic tools
2. Operational Interpretation: The hypothesis testing perspective provides intuitive operational significance for differential privacy
3. Optimization Guidance: The information-theoretic optimization framework can design superior privacy mechanisms

Limitations

1. Computational Complexity: Exact privacy analysis is computationally difficult
2. Parameter Selection: Choosing appropriate (ε, δ) values in practice remains challenging
3. Theory-Practice Gap: Gap exists between theoretically optimal mechanisms and practical applications

Future Directions

1. Large Model Privacy: Privacy protection for large-scale machine learning models
2. Fine-tuning Privacy: Privacy protection in pre-trained model fine-tuning
3. Synthetic Data: Privacy-preserving synthetic data generation
4. Parameter Calibration: Parameter selection based on attack risks

In-depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Theoretical Depth: Provides profound information-theoretic understanding of differential privacy
2. Systematic Coverage: Comprehensively covers various theoretical aspects of differential privacy
3. Practical Value: Provides concrete optimization methods for mechanism design
4. Clear Exposition: Complex theoretical concepts explained in accessible manner

Weaknesses

1. Limited Experimental Validation: Primarily theoretical work, lacking large-scale experimental verification
2. Insufficient Practical Guidance: Further work needed to translate theoretical results to practical applications
3. Computational Complexity: Some theoretically optimal methods have prohibitively high computational complexity

Impact

1. Academic Value: Provides important theoretical foundation for differential privacy research
2. Interdisciplinary Significance: Promotes cross-disciplinary research between information theory and privacy protection
3. Practical Prospects: Offers theoretical guidance for privacy protection system design

Applicable Scenarios

1. Theoretical Research: Theoretical analysis and design of differential privacy mechanisms
2. System Optimization: Performance optimization of existing privacy protection systems
3. Educational Applications: Important reference for teaching differential privacy theory

References

The paper cites 77 important references, covering:

• Differential privacy foundational theory (Dwork et al.)
• Classical information theory results (Csiszár, Rényi, etc.)
• Privacy accounting methods (various numerical and analytical methods)
• Machine learning applications (DP-SGD, etc.)
• Recent advances (synthetic data, parameter selection, etc.)

This paper provides a comprehensive information-theoretic perspective on differential privacy and represents an important theoretical contribution to the field. By viewing differential privacy algorithms as channels, the authors successfully apply information-theoretic tools to analyze and optimize privacy mechanisms, providing valuable insights for both theoretical research and practical applications.