It is shown that the zero placement that limits the privacy loss also raises the floor on the adversary's reconstruction error, and the log-likelihood ratio between the releases of two adjacent topologies is governed by the distances from each zero to the graph frequencies of the two GSOs.
Abstract
We study the differential privacy (DP) of a graph shift operator (GSO) when an analyst observes the output of a graph filter. In particular, we study the setting in which the input signals to the graph filter are drawn from a differentially private distribution. Unlike approaches that perturb the GSO or the filter output, we use the randomness already present in the inputs to protect the GSO. This yields an equivalent level of privacy protection to that of the perturbation methods without adding noise, and thus a better privacy-utility trade-off. We provide an explicit characterization of the privacy loss and its certificate in terms of the zeros of the graph filter. In doing so, we show that the log-likelihood ratio between the releases of two adjacent topologies is governed by the distances from each zero to the graph frequencies of the two GSOs. Then, by uniformly bounding the log-likelihood ratio over the adjacent topologies, we obtain an explicit $(\varepsilon,\delta)$-DP guarantee for Gaussian inputs. We further show, via a Cram\'er--Rao bound, that the zero placement that limits the privacy loss also raises the floor on the adversary's reconstruction error. Finally, empirical validation is performed on a synthetic network of financial exposures, where the largest position a pair can conceal and the accuracy with which it can be sized are collinear across pairs. Both are set by the graph-frequency content of the pair, and the full network becomes recoverable only as the certified budget grows.
A two-stage adaptive mechanism that first obtains a privacy-preserving estimate of how spread out the data are, using the interquartile range (IQR) as the measure of dispersion, and then uses that estimate to shrink the noise added to the query answer whenever the data are concentrated.
Bekir Danış, Muhammed Hasdemir· Erciyes Üniversitesi Fen Bil...· 0 citations
Blowfish privacy relaxes differential privacy (DP) by protecting only the attribute-value substitutions a data owner specifies as edges of a policy graph. A sparser policy can reduce the noise required by a mechanism, but only when the released statistic changes less across protected substitutions than across arbitrary...
Differential privacy (DP) admits several notions, but the choice among them may affect both privacy analysis and utility. In this paper, we consider four mainstream curve-based privacy notions within a unified information-theoretic framework. For a fixed ordered pair of output distributions, we establish information eq...
Buxin Su, Qiao-Shi Yang, Yi-Ding Su et al.· 0 citations
It is shown that input DP is orthogonal to model confidentiality and that the local-DP premise required for shuffle amplification cannot hold under correctness-bounded noise, and that the leaked spectra enable fingerprinting, lineage attribution, and improved logit-based extraction, while suppressing them destroys infe...
Graph property testing asks whether a massive graph satisfies a given property, or is far from doing so, using only a sublinear number of queries to the graph. Since property testers typically inspect only a small, randomly sampled portion of the input, they appear naturally compatible with differential privacy and pri...
Hendrik Fichtenberger, Abigail Gentle, Tamalika Mukherjee et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.