DP-aware AdaLN-Zero: Taming Conditioning-Induced Heavy-Tailed Gradients in Differentially Private Diffusion
Authors: Tao Huang, Jiayang Meng, Xu Yang, Chen Hou, Hong Chen
Organizations: School of Computer Science and Big Data, Minjiang University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China. · School of Information, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China.
Condition injection enables diffusion models to generate context-aware outputs, which is essential for many time-series tasks. However, heterogeneous conditional contexts (e.g., observed history, missingness patterns or outlier covariates) can induce heavy-tailed per-example gradients. Under Differentially Private Stochastic Gradient Descent (DP-SGD), these rare conditioning-driven heavy-tailed gradients disproportionately trigger global clipping, resulting in outlier-dominated updates, larger clipping bias, and degraded utility under a fixed privacy budget. In this paper, we propose DP-aware AdaLN-Zero, a drop-in sensitivity-aware conditioning mechanism for conditional diffusion transformers that limits conditioning-induced gain without modifying the DP-SGD mechanism. DP-aware AdaLN-Zero jointly constrains conditioning representation magnitude and AdaLN modulation parameters via bounded re-parameterization, suppressing extreme gradient tail events before gradient clipping and noise injection. Empirically, DP-SGD equipped with DP-aware AdaLN-Zero improves interpolation/imputation and forecasting under matched privacy settings. We observe consistent gains on a real-world power dataset and two public ETT benchmarks over vanilla DP-SGD. Moreover, gradient diagnostics attribute these improvements to conditioning-specific tail reshaping and reduced clipping distortion, while preserving expressiveness in non-private training. Overall, these results show that sensitivity-aware conditioning can substantially improve private conditional diffusion training without sacrificing standard performance.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Condition-amplified extremes exist even without DP. We compare normal training with training under DP-aware constraints without DP. Under normal training, ∥gcond∥2 is comparable to ∥gother∥2 at typical quantiles (see the blue curve in Figure 1(a) ), but ∥gcond∥2 exhibits rarer and heavier high-end tail events (see the blue curve in Figure 1(b) ). In contrast, DP-aware constraints selectively suppress the high-end tail of ∥gcond∥2 (and consequently that of ∥g∥2 ) far more than ∥gother∥2 : p99 drops by ∼3.5× for ∥gcond∥2 vs. ∼1.2× for ∥gother∥2 . This indicates targeted suppression of conditioning-induced amplification rather than uniform shrinkage, and suggests that (in DP-SGD) clipping events would be disproportionately governed by rare conditioning-path extremes.
Interpolation/Imputation
Forecasting
Model
σ
point_RMSE ↓
point_MAPE ↓
point_MAE ↓
point_RMSE ↓
dist_JS ↓
temp_spec_dist ↓
Non-DP
-
0.584
1.174%
0.476
0.208
0.767
1.484e-4
DP-vanilla
0.03
3.034
5.673%
2.391
0.556
0.736
7.848e-4
DP-aware
1.804
3.541%
1.411
0.296
0.684
2.900e-4
DP-vanilla
0.05
3.498
9.339%
3.110
0.567
0.643
1.650e-3
DP-aware
2.019
4.970%
1.987
0.423
0.636
8.558e-4
Table 1: Results on PrivatePower under matched DP training. We evaluate mask-conditioned interpolation/imputation and forecasting. All metrics are lower-is-better. Bold marks the better of DP-vanilla and DP-aware at each σ .
Figure 2: Gradient-norm distributions under DP training . Compared to DP-vanilla, DP-aware primarily suppresses the extreme tail of the conditioning pathway with minimal impact on the bulk of the distribution, indicating fewer condition-amplified outliers rather than uniform gradient shrinkage.
σ
Model
p95 Statistics
p99 Statistics
Sother
Scond
Stotal
ρemp
ρcond
Sother
Scond
Stotal
ρemp
ρcond
0.03
DP-vanilla
25.0
17.8
31.1
–
–
58.4
49.5
76.5
–
–
DP-aware
24.6
16.4
29.7
0.955
0.921
57.5
43.7
72.0
0.949
0.883
0.05
DP-vanilla
24.1
19.6
31.4
–
–
62.4
62.4
89.2
–
–
DP-aware
24.2
18.9
30.9
0.984
0.964
55.6
55.5
77.3
0.867
0.889
0.10
DP-vanilla
23.8
21.4
32.1
–
–
62.8
68.3
92.7
–
–
Table 2: Gradient-norm diagnostics on PrivatePower across noise multipliers σ . We report robust high-percentile summaries ( p95 / p99 ) of per-example gradient norms for conditioning-path parameters ∥gcond∥2 and remaining parameters ∥gother∥2 . We also report a compact proxy Stotal , empirical diagnostics ρemp and ρcond ; values below 1 indicate reductions relative to DP-vanilla under matched (C,σ) .
σ
Model
pclip
E[η]
η10
η50
η90
0.03
DP-vanilla
0.561
0.73
0.18
0.86
1.00
DP-aware
0.556
0.75
0.22
0.88
1.00
0.20
DP-vanilla
0.589
0.70
0.12
0.82
1.00
DP-aware
0.585
0.72
0.15
0.84
1.00
Table 3: Clipping statistics under matched C . We report the clipping rate pclip and quantiles of the clipping factor η . Across noise multipliers, pclip remains comparable, while DP-aware slightly increases low-quantile and median values of η , suggesting reduced clipping severity.
Model Variant
c bounded
(γ,β,α) bounded
ρemp
Forecast point_RMSE ↓
Forecast dist_JS ↓
DP-vanilla
×
×
1.00
0.567
0.723
DP-aware (only c -bounding)
✓
×
0.95
0.510
0.691
DP-aware (only AdaLN bounding)
×
✓
0.93
0.495
0.677
DP-aware (full, ours)
✓
✓
0.87
0.423
0.636
Table 4: Effects of forward-pass control components. We report ρemp(p99) and forecasting metrics (lower is better).
BM(⋅)
point_RMSE ↓
dist_JS ↓
temp_spec_dist ↓
tanh (default)
0.423
0.636
8.558e-4
soft_clamp_band
0.425
0.639
8.70e-4
hard_clamp
0.452
0.662
9.45e-4
clamp_ste
0.467
0.674
9.90e-4
Table 5: Effect of the bounding operator BM(⋅) at σ=0.05 .
Appendix figures & tables17 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
σ
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
MAPE ↓
R2 ↑
dist_KL ↓
dist_JS ↓
dist_WS ↓
dist_KS ↓
MMD ↓
Non-DP (no DP)
–
0.155
0.208
1.90%
0.861
0.980
0.767
0.605
0.215
1.48e-2
DP-vanilla
0.03
0.430
0.556
4.85%
0.422
1.122
0.736
0.820
0.260
3.90e-2
DP-aware
0.03
0.235
0.296
3.10%
0.741
1.025
0.684
0.700
0.230
2.70e-2
DP-vanilla
0.05
0.448
0.567
5.10%
0.383
1.081
0.643
0.840
0.270
4.80e-2
DP-aware
0.05
0.325
0.423
4.00%
0.603
1.052
0.636
0.810
0.258
4.10e-2
DP-vanilla
0.1
1.280
1.637
12.9%
-0.105
1.555
0.833
1.458
0.390
1.90e-1
Appendix
Table 6: Forecasting metrics on PrivatePower across noise multipliers σ . Lower is better for all metrics except R2.
Model
σ
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
MAPE ↓
R2 ↑
dist_KL ↓
dist_JS ↓
dist_WS ↓
dist_KS ↓
MMD ↓
Non-DP (no DP)
–
0.476
0.584
1.17%
0.775
0.900
0.660
0.560
0.190
1.20e-2
DP-vanilla
0.03
2.391
3.034
5.67%
-0.950
1.210
0.820
0.760
0.240
3.20e-2
DP-aware
0.03
1.411
1.804
3.54%
-0.250
1.030
0.740
0.670
0.220
2.40e-2
DP-vanilla
0.05
3.110
3.498
9.34%
-1.400
1.260
0.835
0.790
0.250
3.80e-2
DP-aware
0.05
1.987
2.019
4.97%
-0.600
1.090
0.760
0.700
0.230
2.90e-2
DP-vanilla
0.1
4.702
5.787
11.67%
-4.100
1.520
0.910
1.080
0.310
9.50e-2
Appendix
Table 7: Interpolation/imputation metrics on PrivatePower across noise multipliers σ . Lower is better for all metrics except R2.
Figure 3: Gradient distributions under DP training (all σ settings).
Model
Interpolation/Imputation
Forecasting
point_RMSE ↓
point_MAPE ↓
point_MAE ↓
point_RMSE ↓
dist_JS ↓
temp_spectral_dist ↓
Non-DP (no DP)
0.310
2.35%
0.210
0.245
0.610
2.10e-4
DP-vanilla
0.780
5.90%
0.520
0.655
0.880
1.85e-3
DP-aware
0.560
4.10%
0.380
0.465
0.780
9.60e-4
Appendix
Table 8: Representative metrics on ETTh1 (matched DP mechanism). DP-vanilla and DP-aware are trained under matched DP-SGD settings ( C=1.0 , noise multiplier σ=0.1 , batch size B=96 , and steps T=20,000 ).
Model
Interpolation/Imputation
Forecasting
point_RMSE ↓
point_MAPE ↓
point_MAE ↓
point_RMSE ↓
dist_WS ↓
temp_spectral_dist ↓
Non-DP (no DP)
0.355
2.80%
0.240
0.295
0.640
2.60e-4
DP-vanilla
0.945
6.80%
0.625
0.805
0.920
2.15e-3
DP-aware
0.685
4.90%
0.455
0.565
0.820
1.20e-3
Appendix
Table 9: Representative metrics on ETTm1 (matched DP mechanism). DP-vanilla and DP-aware are trained under matched DP-SGD settings ( C=1.0 , noise multiplier σ=0.1 , batch size B=96 , and steps T=20,000 ).
σ=0.05
σ=0.20
BM(⋅)
point_RMSE ↓
dist_JS ↓
temp_spec_dist ↓
point_RMSE ↓
dist_JS ↓
temp_spec_dist ↓
tanh (default)
0.423
0.636
8.558e-4
1.262
0.732
1.052e-2
soft_clamp_band
0.425
0.639
8.70e-4
1.270
0.737
1.070e-2
hard_clamp
0.452
0.662
9.45e-4
1.310
0.752
1.120e-2
clamp_ste
0.467
0.674
9.90e-4
1.330
0.760
1.150e-2
Appendix
Table 10: Bounding-operator comparison on PrivatePower for forecasting under matched DP-SGD. Smooth operators ( tanh and soft_clamp_band ) perform similarly and outperform hard truncation variants ( hard_clamp and clamp_ste ).
σ=0.05
σ=0.20
BM(⋅)
point_RMSE ↓
point_MAPE ↓
point_MAE ↓
point_RMSE ↓
point_MAPE ↓
point_MAE ↓
tanh (default)
2.019
4.97%
1.987
4.689
8.41%
3.442
soft_clamp_band
2.025
4.99%
1.995
4.710
8.44%
3.460
hard_clamp
2.120
5.22%
2.070
4.860
8.70%
3.560
clamp_ste
2.180
5.35%
2.120
4.950
8.85%
3.620
Appendix
Table 11: Bounding-operator comparison on PrivatePower for interpolation/imputation under matched DP-SGD. Trends match forecasting: tanh and soft_clamp_band are consistently better than hard truncation variants.
Model
σ
pclip↓
mean( η ) ↑
p10( η ) ↑
p50( η ) ↑
p90( η ) ↑
p99( η ) ↑
DP-vanilla
0.03
0.561
0.73
0.18
0.86
1.00
1.00
DP-aware
0.03
0.554
0.75
0.22
0.88
1.00
1.00
DP-vanilla
0.05
0.570
0.72
0.16
0.84
1.00
1.00
DP-aware
0.05
0.568
0.73
0.18
0.85
1.00
1.00
DP-vanilla
0.10
0.582
0.71
0.14
0.83
1.00
1.00
DP-aware
0.10
0.578
0.72
0.16
0.84
1.00
1.00
Appendix
Table 12: Clipping behaviour under DP-SGD on PrivatePower (matched DP mechanism). We report the clipping activation rate pclip and summary statistics of the clipping factor η=min(1,∥g∥2C) . Lower pclip and larger typical η indicate less clipping-induced attenuation.
Figure 4: Clipping behavior under threshold C (all σ settings). We compare DP-vanilla and DP-aware in terms of clipping factor η=min(1,∥gtotal∥C) and clipping activation rate pclip=P(∥gtotal∥>C) .
Setting
cmax
γmax
βmax
αmax
ρemp
point_RMSE ↓
dist_JS ↓
Loose
1.00C0
1.00Γ0
1.00B0
1.00A0
0.92
0.452
0.661
Medium
0.90C0
0.90Γ0
0.90B0
0.90A0
0.87
0.423
0.636
Tight
0.75C0
0.75Γ0
0.75B0
0.75A0
0.80
0.441
0.651
Too tight
0.50C0
0.50Γ0
0.50B0
0.50A0
0.73
0.562
0.750
Appendix
Table 13: Effect of DP-aware bound tightness on PrivatePower for forecasting. DP-vanilla and all DP-aware variants use a matched DP-SGD mechanism (global clipping norm C=1.0 , noise multiplier σ=0.05 , batch size B=96 , and training steps T=20,000 ). We scale a base reference setting (C0,Γ0,B0,A0) for DP-aware bounds. We report ρemp(p99) (average-case diagnostic; smaller indicates lighter tails/smaller typical gradients) and forecasting metrics (lower is better). The best performance is highlighted in bold.
Interpolation/Imputation
Forecasting
Model
point_RMSE ↓
dist_JS ↓
temp_spectral_dist ↓
point_RMSE ↓
dist_JS ↓
temp_spectral_dist ↓
Non-DP
0.584
0.66
1.48e-4
0.208
0.77
1.48e-4
+ DP-aware ( Loose )
0.590
0.67
1.52e-4
0.212
0.62
1.55e-4
+ DP-aware ( Medium )
0.583
0.66
1.48e-4
0.207
0.77
1.48e-4
+ DP-aware ( Tight )
0.600
0.68
1.60e-4
0.218
0.63
1.62e-4
+ DP-aware ( Too tight )
0.720
0.78
2.30e-4
0.290
0.75
2.40e-4
Appendix
Table 14: Expressiveness check on PrivatePower without DP noise. We compare a non-private baseline to non-private DP-aware variants under different tightness settings. Lower is better for all metrics shown. The best performance is highlighted in bold.
C
Model
ρemp
RMSE ↓
dist_JS ↓
0.5
DP-vanilla
1.00
2.726
0.978
0.5
DP-aware
0.87
1.145
0.826
1.0
DP-vanilla
1.00
1.673
0.833
1.0
DP-aware
0.89
0.671
0.757
2.0
DP-vanilla
1.00
1.344
0.787
2.0
DP-aware
0.89
0.446
0.664
Appendix
Table 15: Effect of clipping threshold C on PrivatePower for forecasting at σ=0.1 . All rows use a matched DP mechanism for each C (same σ , B , and T ); only C changes. DP-aware consistently outperforms DP-vanilla across a range of C values.
Setting
ρemp
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
Loose
0.92
2.231
2.170
Medium
0.87
2.019
1.987
Tight
0.80
2.672
2.246
Too tight
0.73
3.626
3.179
Appendix
Table 16: Effect of DP-aware bound tightness on PrivatePower for interpolation/imputation at σ=0.05 under a matched DP mechanism. We report ρemp and representative interpolation metrics (lower is better); boldface denotes the best performance.
Model variant
ρemp
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
DP-vanilla
1.00
3.498
3.110
DP-aware (only c bounded)
0.95
3.998
3.070
DP-aware (only AdaLN bounded)
0.93
2.337
2.112
DP-aware (full, ours)
0.89
2.019
1.987
Appendix
Table 17: Effects of forward-pass control components on PrivatePower for interpolation/imputation at σ=0.05 . All rows use a matched DP mechanism. We report the empirical diagnostic ρemp and representative interpolation metrics (lower is better). Boldface indicates the best performance.
Figure 5: Training loss dynamics on PrivatePower. Training MSE loss curves for Non-DP, DP-vanilla, and DP-aware under several DP noise multipliers. Larger σ yields a higher loss floor, while DP-aware closely follows DP-vanilla across noise levels.
Method
mean ↓
p50 ↓
p90 ↓
rel. to Non-DP
Non-DP
0.100
0.047
0.201
1.00 ×
DP-vanilla
0.168
0.105
0.350
1.68 ×
DP-aware
0.169
0.108
0.351
1.69 ×
Appendix
Table 18: Runtime summary. Robust statistics of per-step wall-clock time for Non-DP, DP-vanilla, and DP-aware training.
Dataset
Records
Channels
Seq Len
Train/Val/Test
Normalization
ratio_range
pred_len_range
num_blocks_range
PrivatePower
≈ 23.1k
7
168
70%/15%/15%
per-channel standardization
[0.1, 0.5]
[24, 96]
[4, 8]
ETTh1
≈ 17.5k
7
96
12m/4m/4m
per-feature z-score
[0.1, 0.5]
[24, 96]
[4, 8]
ETTm1
≈ 70k
7
96
12m/4m/4m
per-feature z-score
[0.1, 0.5]
[24, 96]
[4, 8]
Appendix
Table 19: Configurations of the datasets and their corresponding mask-based tasks. Each dataset trains a single conditional diffusion model that supports interpolation/imputation (random & stride masks), forecasting (block masks), and full-sequence reconstruction. For PrivatePower, we follow the private-data pipeline in our codebase; for ETTh1 and ETTm1, we follow the common ETT setting.
Conditional diffusion models generate or infer data by steering iterative denoising with observations, labels, text, physical constraints, or other inputs.
Diffusion models have emerged as the foundation of modern generative systems, yet their high memorization capacity raises privacy concerns. While differentially private (DP) training provides formal guarantees, it comes at a cost in sample quality. In this work, we study a complementary question: how much privacy loss is incurred during the sampling process itself? Directly analyzing modern neural denoisers is challenging because their sensitivity to a single training example is generally intractable. To overcome this challenge, we construct and analyze a clipped privacy-accountable empirical denoiser, a training-free estimator of the Bayes-optimal denoiser, whose per-step sensitivity can be computed explicitly, allowing each denoising step to be a Gaussian mechanism. This perspective enables privacy accounting under Gaussian DP when each training example contributes to each denoising step, and under f-DP trade-off functions when each generated sample uses a single randomly subsampled block of the training data. We report every (ε,δ) guarantee as a certified upper bound from a privacy loss distribution accountant, and use a cumulant-based Edgeworth approximation as a fast diagnostic, characterizing where it is reliable and where it becomes anti-conservative. We also analyze the privacy loss along the denoising trajectory and show that it grows steeply near the critical window in which semantic content is formed. This observation motivates hybrid samplers that use the private empirical denoiser through the formative steps where it remains a faithful proxy for the neural denoiser, then switch to a public neural denoiser for the remaining refinement. Our results on CIFAR-10 and CelebA-64 show that the privacy of diffusion models depends not only on the training procedure, but also on sampling-time design choices such as subsampling, stopping time, and hybrid denoising.
William Cheng, Dongjun Kim, Mijung Park
University of British Columbia · Stanford University · Now at Adobe.
Differentially private (DP) training of text-conditioned generative models suffers a utility cliff at strong privacy. We revisit this problem through the geometry of rectified flows: along the straight interpolation between noise and data, the Bayes-optimal velocity is governed to leading order at the noise end by a few class-conditional moments, and increasingly sample-specific structure matters toward the data end. StraightDP exploits this heterogeneity end to end. A small budget share releases whitened class-conditional moments once, to be distilled into the weights or injected at sampling time. The rest is spent by pre-declared DP-SGD toward the data end, beyond the moments' reach. At ε=1 on MNIST, the released moments alone already attain 0.76 downstream accuracy with prototype-like samples and an FID of 237, and uniform DP-SGD attains 0.21. The pipeline built on the release reaches 0.81 accuracy at FID 56 in a public latent space. Constraining per-token stream norms of the multimodal backbone leaves the pretraining loss unchanged yet improves downstream accuracy in the extreme-noise pixel-space regime, and its accuracy effect becomes monotonically more favorable as privacy strengthens. The released moments also port to frozen SD3-medium, where sampling-time injection beats DP-LoRA training at a fraction of the budget.
Xujun Che, Depeng Xu, Xintao Wu
Department of Cybersecurity, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA · Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Synthetic data are increasingly used as an alternative to sharing sensitive records. However, synthetic data generation does not guarantee privacy, as diffusion models trained or adapted on sensitive data remain susceptible to reconstruction attacks. Moreover, while approaches that use differential privacy (DP), such as DP-SGD, achieve provably private diffusion model training, the repeated gradient clipping and noise injection they require result in significant utility loss. An important limitation of DP-based privacy is that, although it has a provable relationship to reconstruction privacy (RP), that relationship is indirect. RP is defined in terms of limiting how much an adversary's posterior distribution over sensitive data differs from the prior, whereas DP provides guarantees by bounding the sensitivity of outputs to changes in individual records. This indirection is an important source of the utility loss. To address this, we propose a PAC-private diffusion model adaptation to achieve reconstruction privacy. Since PAC-privacy is defined directly with respect to posterior advantage over the prior, it directly implicates RP. To obtain scalable PAC privatization in high dimensions, we first learn a compact data-dependent diffusion model component using LoRA or Textual Inversion, and then calibrate anisotropic Gaussian noise from the covariance of repeated mechanism outputs. Unlike DP-SGD, our method perturbs the learned component only once after optimization, thereby avoiding privacy composition across gradient updates. We evaluate the framework on few-shot concept personalization and full-dataset image synthesis, and show that the proposed approach better preserves subject identity, generation quality, and downstream classification accuracy than DP while achieving the same reconstruction privacy.
Boming Miao, Tao Zhang, Netanel Raviv +3
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis