Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Unifying Laplace Mechanism with Instance Optimality in Differential Privacy

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The piecewise Laplace mechanism adds noise at local-sensitivity scale, keeps pure differential privacy, and dominates the inverse sensitivity mechanism for sample-monotone functions.

desk verdict A genuinely new piecewise Laplace mechanism with a sound DP proof and a real dominance result, but the advertised strict dominance over inverse sensitivity is only proved for sample-monotone functions and the abstract oversells it. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02798 v1 pith:SMQPX7FE submitted 2025-05-05 cs.DS

David Durfee This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DS MSC 68P2768W20
keywords differentialprivacyLaplacemechanismlocalsensitivityinverseexponentialpiecewisesamplinginstanceoptimalitytruncated
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to show that Laplace-style noise can be adapted to the hardness of the specific dataset, rather than only to a global worst case over all datasets. Its piecewise Laplace mechanism uses a different noise scale on each interval, set by how much one individual's data can change the function output within that interval, and the paper proves this still satisfies pure $\varepsilon$-differential privacy. The proof goes through a quality score function with sensitivity at most one, so the mechanism is an instance of the exponential mechanism; a two-step sampling procedure makes it practical. For sample-monotone functions, the mechanism is at least as likely as the inverse sensitivity mechanism to land within any distance $\alpha$ of the true output, and it reduces exactly to the Laplace mechanism when all local sensitivities equal the global sensitivity. If these claims hold, the standard Laplace mechanism and instance-optimal adaptive mechanisms are unified.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the piecewise quality score function $q_{\mathrm{plm}}(y;x)$: for an output $y$, it first computes $\ell(y;x)$, the minimum number of records that must change so that the interval $[\underline{f}(x;\ell),\bar{f}(x;\ell)]$ contains $y$, charges the score $-(\ell+1)$ at the interval endpoints, and linearly interpolates inside the interval using the interval length. Feeding this score to the exponential mechanism gives exactly the piecewise Laplace density. The equivalent sampling procedure draws an interval from the inverse-sensitivity weights and then samples a truncated exponential with scale equal to the interval's length; the memoryless property of the exponential distribution makes the total exponential decay identical across intervals, and in the worst case the interpolation matches, up to a constant shift, $-|f(x)-y|/\Delta$, reproducing the Laplace mechanism.

What would settle it

Choose a function that is not sample-monotone, such as a periodic function where an output far from $f(x)$ can be reached by changing fewer individuals than an output near $f(x)$, and numerically compare the accuracy curves $\Pr[|M_{\mathrm{plm}}(x)-f(x)|\le\alpha]$ and $\Pr[|M_{\mathrm{inv}}(x)-f(x)|\le\alpha]$; if any $\alpha$ has the former below the latter, the dominance claim fails. Alternatively, search neighboring datasets $x,x'$ and an output $y$ for which $|q_{\mathrm{plm}}(y;x)-q_{\mathrm{plm}}(y;x')|>1$, which would falsify the privacy bound of Theorem 1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that one can add Laplace noise proportional to the local sensitivity of each interval without losing pure $\varepsilon$-differential privacy. For a function $f$ and dataset $x$, let $\bar{f}(x;\ell)$ and $\underline{f}(x;\ell)$ be the largest and smallest values $f$ can take after changing at most $\ell$ records; these endpoints define intervals whose lengths lower-bound the local sensitivity at that distance. The paper's piecewise Laplace distribution places a truncated exponential density on each interval with scale equal to the interval length, and shows that the resulting distribution is exactly the exponential mechanism applied to a piecewise-linear quality score. Because the score's sensitivity is at most one (from Corollary 3.1 and a linear-interpolation fact), the mechanism is $\varepsilon$-DP regardless of the function's structure. In the continuous setting, the paper proves that for sample-monotone functions this distribution dominates the inverse sensitivity mechanism pointwise in the accuracy metric, and that in the worst case of equal local sensitivities it coincides with the standard Laplace mechanism.

Load-bearing premise

The dominance claim over the inverse sensitivity mechanism assumes the function is sample-monotone—that outputs farther from $f(x)$ are never easier to reach by changing fewer records—and if that property fails, the comparison can break even though the privacy guarantee remains.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every sample-monotone function and every $\alpha>0$, the probability that the piecewise Laplace mechanism returns an answer within $\alpha$ of $f(x)$ is at least that of the inverse sensitivity mechanism, and strictly larger for almost all $\alpha$.
  • On worst-case datasets where all marginal sensitivities equal the global sensitivity, the mechanism becomes the standard Laplace mechanism and inherits the same noise scale, with privacy loss matching Laplace up to bounded-range composition and concentrated differential privacy.
  • The privacy guarantee only requires interval bounds satisfying the main interval-containment corollary, so approximate or coarser bounds can be used; in particular, substituting the global sensitivity beyond distance $O(1/\varepsilon)$ keeps privacy while limiting the computation to $O(1/\varepsilon)$ intervals.
  • The construction extends to $\mathbb{R}^d$ through $L_p$ balls and radius bounding functions, giving a sensitivity-one quality score for the approximate variant and a higher-dimensional sampling procedure for $L_1$ balls.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the piecewise construction generalizes beyond sample-monotone functions, it could replace inverse sensitivity in settings where exact inverse sensitivity is computationally expensive, since the practical sampling only needs interval endpoints.
  • The linear-interpolation trick may be a general recipe: any exponential mechanism with an integer-valued quality score can be sharpened by interpolating inside each level set, improving concentration without changing the privacy bound.
  • The approximate variant suggests a practical design pattern: compute local sensitivity only within a small radius and fall back to a global bound beyond it, which could make instance-optimal privacy practical for large graphs and high-dimensional estimates where exact intervals are intractable.
  • The strict improvement over uniform interval sampling implies that for continuous ranges, replacing uniform draws with truncated exponentials at the same privacy level is a free accuracy gain, an observation that might transfer to other sampling-based private mechanisms.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a piecewise Laplace mechanism for differential privacy that adds noise with scale proportional to the length of output intervals determined by dataset-dependent upper and lower bounds of the function after a given number of individual changes. The mechanism is defined first through the exponential mechanism with a piecewise-linear quality score (Section 3.1) and then through a practical two-step sampler (Algorithm 1); Lemma 3.1 shows these two descriptions coincide. The paper proves that the mechanism is pure ε-DP (Theorem 1), reduces to the classical Laplace mechanism when all interval lengths equal the global sensitivity (Section 4.1), and, for sample-monotone functions, dominates the inverse sensitivity mechanism in the sense of being at least as likely to return an answer within any distance α of f(x) (Theorem 2). An approximate variant based on radius bounding functions is given in Section 5.

Significance. If the results hold in their advertised generality, the paper gives a clean and useful bridge between the Laplace mechanism and the inverse sensitivity/exponential mechanism framework, together with a concrete sampling algorithm. The privacy proof (Theorem 1) and the equivalence proof (Lemma 3.1) are carefully argued and appear sound; Algorithm 1 is explicit and implementable. The dominance result over the inverse sensitivity mechanism, which is known to be nearly instance optimal, is a genuinely attractive claim. The main weakness is that the abstract and Section 1.3 state the dominance result without the sample-monotone condition that Theorem 2 actually requires, and the proof of the key equality used for the comparison (Corollary 4.1) has a nontrivial gap concerning attainment of sup/inf. These issues are local and fixable, but they affect the central optimality claim, so the paper needs revision before publication.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; Section 1.3; Section 4.2; Theorem 2] The abstract and Section 1.3 claim, without qualification, that in the continuous setting the piecewise Laplace mechanism strictly dominates the inverse sensitivity mechanism. However, Theorem 2 proves this dominance only for sample-monotone functions (Definition 4.2), and the proof relies on Corollary 4.1, which equates len_f(y;x) with l(y;x). For non-sample-monotone functions this equality can fail, so the advertised unification with instance optimality is not supported in the stated generality. The dominance and instance-optimality claims should be explicitly qualified by sample-monotonicity, or the paper should prove dominance for a broader class.
  2. [Section 4.2, Corollary 4.1] The proof of Corollary 4.1 asserts that if len_f(y;x) > l(y;x), then because y is bounded by f(x;l(y;x)), 'there must exist y'' such that f(x'')=y''≥y' within distance l(y;x). This attainment of the supremum is not guaranteed without additional assumptions such as continuity on a compact convex domain or a finite data universe. If the supremum is approached but not attained, the stated contradiction does not follow directly; a limiting argument together with sample-monotonicity would be needed, and equality may fail on a measure-zero set such as endpoints of the range. Since Theorem 2 depends on this equality, the hypotheses of Theorem 2 should be strengthened or the proof should be repaired to show the needed equality holds almost everywhere, which is sufficient for the density argument.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.1, Lemma 5.2] The statement and proof of Lemma 5.2 contain a typo: the second occurrence of ̃q_plm(y;x) should be ̃q_plm(y;x′), since the claim concerns neighboring datasets x and x′.
  2. [Section 3.1, Corollary 3.2] The parenthetical after Corollary 3.2 correctly notes that the statement should be restricted to y in [inf_x f(x), sup_x f(x)]; the formal statement should be corrected to include this restriction.
  3. [Algorithm 1] The sign variable is written as '1' in 'Sample interval 1·𝓁 where 1 ∈ {1,−1}', which is confusing because it clashes with the numeral 1; a symbol such as s or ± would be clearer.
  4. [Abstract; Section 3.2] The abstract says Laplace noise is drawn 'proportional to the local sensitivity,' while Section 3.2 correctly explains that the scale is proportional to the interval length Δ(x;𝓁), which is only a lower bound on local sensitivity. Aligning the wording with the formal definition would prevent overreading.
  5. [Theorem 2] The theorem states a non-strict inequality for all α, while the text says the inequality is strict for almost all α; stating this strictness formally in Theorem 2 would make the claimed 'strict dominance' precise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the piecewise Laplace mechanism is defined from an explicit quality score, its DP proof is self-contained, and the dominance comparison targets the external inverse-sensitivity benchmark; author self-citations are secondary.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. The piecewise Laplace density M.1 is defined directly from the quality score q_plm (Definition 3.1), and Theorem 1 proves epsilon-DP by bounding the sensitivity of q_plm using Corollaries 3.1-3.3 and Fact 1; none of these steps assume the optimality result. Algorithm 1 is shown equivalent to M.1 by an explicit density-ratio calculation in Lemma 3.1, not by constructional fiat. The optimality claim in Theorem 2 compares M_plm to the inverse sensitivity mechanism of [MT07, AD20b], which is an external benchmark, and the proof first derives the equality len_f(y;x)=l(y;x) under the sample-monotone hypothesis (Corollary 4.1) rather than assuming it. The stochastic dominance over the inverse sensitivity mechanism then follows from a pointwise CDF inequality between the truncated exponential and the uniform distribution on each interval, which is an independent mathematical fact. The only noted gap is that the abstract and Section 1.3 state the dominance unconditionally while Theorem 2 explicitly assumes sample-monotonicity; this is a scope or correctness issue, not circularity, because the proof does not secretly use the dominance claim as an input. The author's self-citations ([DR19], [DDR20], [Dur24]) appear only in secondary discussions of bounded-range composition and an approximate asymmetric variant, and they are not used to prove Theorem 1 or Theorem 2. No fitted parameters, no renamed predictions, and no imported uniqueness theorems are present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No empirical constants are fitted; the mechanism is an analytic construction. The piecewise Laplace distribution is a new mathematical object but not a postulated physical entity, so the invented-entities ledger is empty. The main unstated inputs are domain assumptions about the function class and interval computation.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Exponential mechanism privacy guarantee (Proposition 1 from [MT07])
    Used in Theorem 1 to reduce pure DP to a sensitivity bound on the quality score q_plm; invoked in Section 3.1.
  • standard math Memoryless property of the exponential distribution
    Underlies the two-step sampling construction in Section 3.2 and the equivalence proof in Lemma 3.1.
  • domain assumption Bounded range of f is needed in practice, with extended infinities for edge cases
    The remark in Section 3.1 uses inf∅=∞ and e^{-∞}=0 to handle y outside the function range; Section 4.1 notes bounded range is strictly necessary for swap neighboring.
  • domain assumption Sample-monotonicity of f for the comparison with inverse sensitivity
    Theorem 2 and Corollary 4.1 require len_f(y;x)=l(y;x), which holds only for sample-monotone functions; the abstract states strict dominance without this caveat.
  • domain assumption Existence and computability of the interval bounds f(x;l) and its lower counterpart
    The mechanism, Algorithm 1, and the DP proof require these sup/inf endpoints; Section 5 discusses approximations when they are intractable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unifying Laplace Mechanism with Instance Optimality in Differential Privacy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SMQPX7FE

@misc{pith2026250502798,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unifying Laplace Mechanism with Instance Optimality in Differential Privacy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SMQPX7FE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02798}
}
read the original abstract

We adapt the canonical Laplace mechanism, widely used in differentially private data analysis, to achieve near instance optimality with respect to the hardness of the underlying dataset. In particular, we construct a piecewise Laplace distribution whereby we defy traditional assumptions and show that Laplace noise can in fact be drawn proportional to the local sensitivity when done in a piecewise manner. While it may initially seem counterintuitive that this satisfies (pure) differential privacy and can be sampled, we provide both through a simple connection to the exponential mechanism and inverse sensitivity along with the fact that the Laplace distribution is a two-sided exponential distribution. As a result, we prove that in the continuous setting our \textit{piecewise Laplace mechanism} strictly dominates the inverse sensitivity mechanism, which was previously shown to both be nearly instance optimal and uniformly outperform the smooth sensitivity framework. Furthermore, in the worst-case where all local sensitivities equal the global sensitivity, our method simply reduces to a Laplace mechanism. We also complement this with an approximate local sensitivity variant to potentially ease the computational cost, which can also extend to higher dimensions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02798 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Two-step sampling procedure for piecewise Laplace distribution Drawing from the truncated exponential distribution instead of the uniform distribution, as is done for inverse sensitivity mechanism, immediately implies improved accuracy using our methodology. Moreover, this change will come with the exact same privacy guarantees. It is known that drawing from the exponential distribution can be equivalently achieved … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Instance-optimality in differential privacy via approximate inverse sensitivity mechanisms

    Hilal Asi and John C Duchi. Instance-optimality in differential privacy via approximate inverse sensitivity mechanisms. Advances in neural information processing systems , 33:14106--14117, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Near instance-optimality in differential privacy

    Hilal Asi and John C Duchi. Near instance-optimality in differential privacy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.10630 , 2020

    arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    Adapting to function difficulty and growth conditions in private optimization

    Hilal Asi, Daniel L \'e vy, and John C Duchi. Adapting to function difficulty and growth conditions in private optimization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 34:19069--19081, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    From robustness to privacy and back

    Hilal Asi, Jonathan Ullman, and Lydia Zakynthinou. From robustness to privacy and back. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 1121--1146. PMLR, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Differentially private data analysis of social networks via restricted sensitivity

    Jeremiah Blocki, Avrim Blum, Anupam Datta, and Or Sheffet. Differentially private data analysis of social networks via restricted sensitivity. In Proceedings of the 4th conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science , pages 87--96, 2013

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Concentrated differential privacy: Simplifications, extensions, and lower bounds

    Mark Bun and Thomas Steinke. Concentrated differential privacy: Simplifications, extensions, and lower bounds. In Theory of Cryptography: 14th International Conference, TCC 2016-B, Beijing, China, October 31-November 3, 2016, Proceedings, Part I , pages 635--658. Springer, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Average-case averages: Private algorithms for smooth sensitivity and mean estimation

    Mark Bun and Thomas Steinke. Average-case averages: Private algorithms for smooth sensitivity and mean estimation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 32, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Individual sensitivity preprocessing for data privacy

    Rachel Cummings and David Durfee. Individual sensitivity preprocessing for data privacy. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms , pages 528--547. SIAM, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Bounding, concentrating, and truncating: Unifying privacy loss composition for data analytics

    Mark Cesar and Ryan Rogers. Bounding, concentrating, and truncating: Unifying privacy loss composition for data analytics. In Algorithmic Learning Theory , pages 421--457. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Recursive mechanism: towards node differential privacy and unrestricted joins

    Shixi Chen and Shuigeng Zhou. Recursive mechanism: towards node differential privacy and unrestricted joins. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data , pages 653--664, 2013

    2013

  3. [11]

    Optimal differential privacy composition for exponential mechanisms

    Jinshuo Dong, David Durfee, and Ryan Rogers. Optimal differential privacy composition for exponential mechanisms. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 2597--2606. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Our data, ourselves: Privacy via distributed noise generation

    Cynthia Dwork, Krishnaram Kenthapadi, Frank McSherry, Ilya Mironov, and Moni Naor. Our data, ourselves: Privacy via distributed noise generation. In Advances in Cryptology-EUROCRYPT 2006: 24th Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Tech...

    2006

  5. [13]

    Differential privacy and robust statistics

    Cynthia Dwork and Jing Lei. Differential privacy and robust statistics. In Proceedings of the forty-first annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing , pages 371--380, 2009

    2009

  6. [14]

    Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis

    Cynthia Dwork, Frank McSherry, Kobbi Nissim, and Adam Smith. Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis. In Theory of Cryptography: Third Theory of Cryptography Conference, TCC 2006, New York, NY, USA, March 4-7, 2006. Proceedings 3 , pages 265--284. Springer, 2006

    2006

  7. [15]

    Practical differentially private top-k selection with pay-what-you-get composition

    David Durfee and Ryan M Rogers. Practical differentially private top-k selection with pay-what-you-get composition. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 32, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Instance-specific asymmetric sensitivity in differential privacy

    David Durfee. Instance-specific asymmetric sensitivity in differential privacy. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 37:140970--140999, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Shifted inverse: A general mechanism for monotonic functions under user differential privacy

    Juanru Fang, Wei Dong, and Ke Yi. Shifted inverse: A general mechanism for monotonic functions under user differential privacy. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security , pages 1009--1022, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Smooth sensitivity based approach for differentially private pca

    Alon Gonem and Ram Gilad-Bachrach. Smooth sensitivity based approach for differentially private pca. In Algorithmic Learning Theory , pages 438--450. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Robustness implies privacy in statistical estimation

    Samuel B Hopkins, Gautam Kamath, Mahbod Majid, and Shyam Narayanan. Robustness implies privacy in statistical estimation. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages 497--506, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Privacy-preserving data exploration in genome-wide association studies

    Aaron Johnson and Vitaly Shmatikov. Privacy-preserving data exploration in genome-wide association studies. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining , pages 1079--1087, 2013

    2013

  13. [21]

    Analyzing graphs with node differential privacy

    Shiva Prasad Kasiviswanathan, Kobbi Nissim, Sofya Raskhodnikova, and Adam Smith. Analyzing graphs with node differential privacy. In Theory of Cryptography: 10th Theory of Cryptography Conference, TCC 2013, Tokyo, Japan, March 3-6, 2013. Proceedings , pages 457--476. Springer, 2013

    2013

  14. [22]

    Differential privacy and robust statistics in high dimensions

    Xiyang Liu, Weihao Kong, and Sewoong Oh. Differential privacy and robust statistics in high dimensions. In Conference on Learning Theory , pages 1167--1246. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Privately evaluating untrusted black-box functions

    Ephraim Linder, Sofya Raskhodnikova, Adam Smith, and Thomas Steinke. Privately evaluating untrusted black-box functions. To appear in Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Pan-private algorithms via statistics on sketches

    Darakhshan Mir, Shan Muthukrishnan, Aleksandar Nikolov, and Rebecca N Wright. Pan-private algorithms via statistics on sketches. In Proceedings of the thirtieth ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems , pages 37--48, 2011

    2011

  17. [25]

    Mechanism design via differential privacy

    Frank McSherry and Kunal Talwar. Mechanism design via differential privacy. In 48th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS'07) , pages 94--103. IEEE, 2007

    2007

  18. [26]

    Smooth sensitivity and sampling in private data analysis

    Kobbi Nissim, Sofya Raskhodnikova, and Adam Smith. Smooth sensitivity and sampling in private data analysis. In Proceedings of the thirty-ninth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing , pages 75--84, 2007

    2007

  19. [27]

    Differentially private analysis of outliers

    Rina Okada, Kazuto Fukuchi, and Jun Sakuma. Differentially private analysis of outliers. In Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases: European Conference, ECML PKDD 2015, Porto, Portugal, September 7-11, 2015, Proceedings, Part II 15 , pages 458--473. Springer, 2015

    2015

  20. [28]

    Privacy-preserving statistical estimation with optimal convergence rates

    Adam Smith. Privacy-preserving statistical estimation with optimal convergence rates. In Proceedings of the forty-third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing , pages 813--822, 2011

    2011

  21. [29]

    Differentially private feature selection via stability arguments, and the robustness of the lasso

    Abhradeep Guha Thakurta and Adam Smith. Differentially private feature selection via stability arguments, and the robustness of the lasso. In Conference on Learning Theory , pages 819--850. PMLR, 2013

    2013

  22. [30]

    Efficiently estimating erdos-renyi graphs with node differential privacy

    Jonathan Ullman and Adam Sealfon. Efficiently estimating erdos-renyi graphs with node differential privacy. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 32, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    The complexity of differential privacy

    Salil Vadhan. The complexity of differential privacy. Tutorials on the Foundations of Cryptography: Dedicated to Oded Goldreich , pages 347--450, 2017

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.