Gaussian Differential Privacy
Open accessAbstract
Differential privacy has seen remarkable success as a rigorous and practical formalization of data privacy in the past decade. This privacy definition and its divergence based relaxations, however, have several acknowledged weaknesses, either in handling composition of private algorithms or in analyzing important primitives like privacy amplification by subsampling. Inspired by the hypothesis testing formulation of privacy, this paper proposes a new relaxation, which we term `$f$-differential privacy' ($f$-DP). This notion of privacy has a number of appealing properties and, in particular, avoids difficulties associated with divergence based relaxations. First, $f$-DP preserves the hypothesis testing interpretation. In addition, $f$-DP allows for lossless reasoning about composition in an algebraic fashion. Moreover, we provide a powerful technique to import existing results proven for original DP to $f$-DP and, as an application, obtain a simple subsampling theorem for $f$-DP. In addition to the above findings, we introduce a canonical single-parameter family of privacy notions within the $f$-DP class that is referred to as `Gaussian differential privacy' (GDP), defined based on testing two shifted Gaussians. GDP is focal among the $f$-DP class because of a central limit theorem we prove. More precisely, the privacy guarantees of \emph{any} hypothesis testing based definition of privacy (including original DP) converges to GDP in the limit under composition. The CLT also yields a computationally inexpensive tool for analyzing the exact composition of private algorithms. Taken together, this collection of attractive properties render $f$-DP a mathematically coherent, analytically tractable, and versatile framework for private data analysis. Finally, we demonstrate the use of the tools we develop by giving an improved privacy analysis of noisy stochastic gradient descent.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Implementations of differential privacy range from simple random shuffling of the input data to the introduction of noise to the dataset, including Gaussian DP with the benefit of better interpretability.
“Implementations range from simple random shuffling of the input data 57 to the introduction of noise to the dataset (Gaussian DP 58 with the benefit of better interpretability).”
From Secure, privacy-preserving and federated machine learning in medical imaging (2020) · cites this paper as [58]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 34 · Cited by 389
- Authors
- Dong, J., Roth, A., & Su, W. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Corresponding author
- Su, Weijie J.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2019
- Volume
- 84
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-37
- ISSN
- 1369-7412 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1905.02383
- OpenAlex
- W3189333525
- Cited by
- 389
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 95 · 2025: 83 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 7
- FWCI
- 19.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1253345, 1847415, 1763314)
- Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
- Brandeis University
- Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cloud Data Security Solutions
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
- Keywords
- differential privacy, Gaussian differential privacy, hypothesis testing, Berry-Esseen theorem, privacy guarantees
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review