Tight Lower Bounds for Differentially Private Selection

A pervasive task in the differential privacy literature is to select the $k$ items of "highest quality" out of a set of $d$ items, where the quality of each item depends on a sensitive dataset that must be protected. Variants of this task arise naturally in fundamental problems like feature selection and hypothesis testing, and also as subroutines for many sophisticated differentially private algorithms. The standard approaches to these tasks---repeated use of the exponential mechanism or the sparse vector technique---approximately solve this problem given a dataset of $n = O(\sqrt{k}\log d)$ samples. We provide a tight lower bound for some very simple variants of the private selection problem. Our lower bound shows that a sample of size $n = \Omega(\sqrt{k} \log d)$ is required even to achieve a very minimal accuracy guarantee. Our results are based on an extension of the fingerprinting method to sparse selection problems. Previously, the fingerprinting method has been used to provide tight lower bounds for answering an entire set of $d$ queries, but often only some much smaller set of $k$ queries are relevant. Our extension allows us to prove lower bounds that depend on both the number of relevant queries and the total number of queries

Optimal sequential fingerprinting: Wald vs. Tardos

We study sequential collusion-resistant fingerprinting, where the fingerprinting code is generated in advance but accusations may be made between rounds, and show that in this setting both the dynamic Tardos scheme and schemes building upon Wald's sequential probability ratio test (SPRT) are asymptotically optimal. We further compare these two approaches to sequential fingerprinting, highlighting differences between the two schemes. Based on these differences, we argue that Wald's scheme should in general be preferred over the dynamic Tardos scheme, even though both schemes have their merits. As a side result, we derive an optimal sequential group testing method for the classical model, which can easily be generalized to different group testing models.Comment: 12 pages, 10 figure

The Limits of Post-Selection Generalization

While statistics and machine learning offers numerous methods for ensuring generalization, these methods often fail in the presence of adaptivity---the common practice in which the choice of analysis depends on previous interactions with the same dataset. A recent line of work has introduced powerful, general purpose algorithms that ensure post hoc generalization (also called robust or post-selection generalization), which says that, given the output of the algorithm, it is hard to find any statistic for which the data differs significantly from the population it came from. In this work we show several limitations on the power of algorithms satisfying post hoc generalization. First, we show a tight lower bound on the error of any algorithm that satisfies post hoc generalization and answers adaptively chosen statistical queries, showing a strong barrier to progress in post selection data analysis. Second, we show that post hoc generalization is not closed under composition, despite many examples of such algorithms exhibiting strong composition properties