arXiv:2002.09465

Locally Private Hypothesis Selection

Sivakanth Gopi, Gautam Kamath, Janardhan Kulkarni, Aleksandar Nikolov, Zhiwei Steven Wu, Huanyu Zhang

제출 2020-02-21

원문 초록

We initiate the study of hypothesis selection under local differential privacy. Given samples from an unknown probability distribution $p$ and a set of $k$ probability distributions $\mathcal{Q}$, we aim to output, under the constraints of $\varepsilon$-local differential privacy, a distribution from $\mathcal{Q}$ whose total variation distance to $p$ is comparable to the best such distribution. This is a generalization of the classic problem of $k$-wise simple hypothesis testing, which corresponds to when $p \in \mathcal{Q}$, and we wish to identify $p$. Absent privacy constraints, this problem requires $O(\log k)$ samples from $p$, and it was recently shown that the same complexity is achievable under (central) differential privacy. However, the naive approach to this problem under local differential privacy would require $\tilde O(k^2)$ samples. We first show that the constraint of local differential privacy incurs an exponential increase in cost: any algorithm for this problem requires at least $\Omega(k)$ samples. Second, for the special case of $k$-wise simple hypothesis testing, we provide a non-interactive algorithm which nearly matches this bound, requiring $\tilde O(k)$ samples. Finally, we provide sequentially interactive algorithms for the general case, requiring $\tilde O(k)$ samples and only $O(\log \log k)$ rounds of interactivity. Our algorithms are achieved through a reduction to maximum selection with adversarial comparators, a problem of independent interest for which we initiate study in the parallel setting. For this problem, we provide a family of algorithms for each number of allowed rounds of interaction $t$, as well as lower bounds showing that they are near-optimal for every $t$. Notably, our algorithms result in exponential improvements on the round complexity of previous methods.

함께 살펴볼 논문

공통 태그를 근거로 연결했습니다. 실제 인용 관계나 논문의 우수성을 뜻하지 않습니다.

토론

이 논문과 연결된 포럼 글이 아직 없습니다.