Gaussian Differential Privacy

Latest papers 8

Sep 30, 2026cs.LG

Certification-Based Differentially Private Learning

Differential privacy (DP) in machine learning is typically achieved by adding noise to model parameters (private learning) or to model outputs (private prediction). Recent work uses formal methods, namely abstract interpretation, to provide tighter privacy guarantees, but only for private prediction in classification settings. In this work, we investigate the use of formal methods as a general tool for tighter privacy analysis. First, we generalize the abstract gradient training (AGT) framework to private prediction in continuous, unbounded regression. Second, by reducing learning in parameterized models to a regression problem over the parameter space, we introduce Abstract Gradient Sampling (AGS), an algorithm that enables reachability-based analysis to provide guarantees for private learning. In both private prediction and private learning, we provide tightened privacy accounting for the AGT framework and a theoretical analysis demonstrating when our smooth sensitivity upper-bounds yield favourable privacy-utility trade-off. In practice, we validate that our regression bounds are tighter than global-sensitivity baselines on regression benchmarks, and, notably, yield the first finite privacy guarantees in settings where global prediction sensitivity is a priori unbounded. We also find that under matched conditions, our private learning algorithm can outperform standard private learners.
Sep 21, 2026stat.ML

Empirical Auditing of Edge-Private Graph Generators

We empirically audit privacy leakage by testing whether outputs from edge-neighbouring inputs remain distinguishable, using statistically valid lower bounds on the privacy loss witnessed by our attacks. Our framework compares direct-edge, local-structural, and GNN-based attacks through the geometry surrounding a target edge. Experiments across two generators and two networks show that privacy leakage is both mechanism- and network-dependent, with learned representations revealing information not captured by conventional local statistics.
Sep 11, 2026cs.CL

Component-Aware Differential Privacy for Federated Multilingual Speech-LLMs

Per-layer differential privacy (DP) clipping improves gradient fidelity in federated learning by allocating per-matrix clipping budgets proportional to parameter count. We show that this recipe breaks for speech large language models (speech-LLMs), when the acoustic encoder and the language decoder differ by an order of magnitude in update norm. Single-pool per-layer methods suffer \emph{cross-component budget collapse}, dragging word error rate (WER) far from flat global clipping or collapsing training entirely. When the norm imbalance is milder, adaptive single-pool methods partially recover, confirming that collapse severity scales with the inter-component norm ratio. We empirically diagnose the root cause across six per-layer methods and three speech-LLM architectures. We then propose \emph{α\alpha-split}, a two-pool allocation that normalises encoder and LLM parameters into independent pools, and show that joint ℓ2\ell_2 sensitivity and the original (ε,δ)(\varepsilon,\delta)-DP guarantee are unchanged. At architecture-calibrated α\alpha, our method recovers WER utility compared to flat DP, while granting the encoder 4.47×4.47{\times} tighter per-component noise protection against speaker voice-based gradient-inversion attacks at only +2.6%+2.6\% LLM noise overhead.
Jul 9, 2026cs.LG

EdgeRefine: Privacy-Utility Balance for Graphs via Jaccard Sampling under Edge Differential Privacy

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have shown considerable success in learning from graph-structured data, but their use in privacy-sensitive areas remains difficult because graph structure can leak sensitive link information. To satisfy edge-level differential privacy, a common approach is to inject noise into all elements of the graph's adjacency matrix, thereby obfuscating the existence of any single edge. However, stronger privacy requires more noise, and excessive noise reduces utility, making the privacy-utility balance a major barrier to practical privacy-preserving graph learning. To address this issue, we propose EdgeRefine, a local differential privacy framework that improves this trade-off through adaptive edge refinement. EdgeRefine first estimates edge-existence probabilities using Jaccard similarity and ranks edges for noisy edge removal. To ensure the sparsity and reliability of the final graph, it uses the privacy budget εε to determine the ratio of true to false edges, samples them separately based on this probability ranking, and controls the total number of edges with a separate sampling rate kk. Extensive experiments show that EdgeRefine achieves accuracy comparable to the noise-free baseline and substantially outperforms other privacy-preserving methods across datasets and GNN architectures. Under privacy budget ε=2.5ε= 2.5, EdgeRefine improves node classification accuracy over state-of-the-art baselines by 17.8% on ACM under GAT and 19.7% on Cora under GCN. In graph classification, it achieves an average accuracy degradation of around 5% compared to the noise-free baseline. Under graph reconstruction attacks, EdgeRefine maintains relative absolute error levels above 1 across all privacy budgets, averaging 1.962 on Cora and 1.472 on AMAP, indicating strong resilience against privacy leakage.
Jun 8, 2026cs.LG

On Choosing the μμ Parameter in Gaussian Differential Privacy

Recent work argues for using Gaussian differential privacy (GDP) to report the privacy guarantees in privacy-preserving machine learning. We provide principled mappings from pure-DP ε\varepsilon to GDP μμ by matching the worst-case success of a strong-adversary membership inference attack in terms of three metrics: multiplicative advantage at fixed FPR, precision at fixed recall, and the standard privacy profile. We tabulate μμ values across a useful range of parameters and recommend μ≈ε/5μ\approx \varepsilon/5 as a conservative general-purpose conversion.
May 14, 2026cs.IR

Differentially Private Motif-Preserving Multi-modal Hashing

Cross-modal hashing enables efficient retrieval by encoding images and text into compact binary codes. State-of-the-art methods rely on semantic similarity graphs derived from user interactions for supervision, yet these graphs encode sensitive behavioral patterns vulnerable to link reconstruction attacks. Existing privacy-preserving approaches fail on graph-structured data: Differentially Private SGD destroys relational motifs by treating samples independently, while graph synthesis methods suffer from unbounded local sensitivity in scale-free networks, hub nodes cause single-edge modifications to alter triangle counts by O(N)\mathcal{O}(N), necessitating prohibitive noise injection. We term this phenomenon Hubness Explosion. We propose DMP-MH, a Sanitize-then-Distill framework that decouples privacy from representation learning. Our approach first bounds sensitivity by deterministically clipping node degrees, capping the L2L_2-sensitivity of triangle motifs independently of dataset size. A sanitized synthetic graph is then generated via Noisy Mirror Descent under (ε,δ)(ε,δ)-Edge Differential Privacy. Finally, dual-stream hashing networks distill this topology using a holistic structural loss that enforces cross-modal alignment. Evaluated on MIRFlickr-25K and NUS-WIDE under a strict inductive protocol, DMP-MH outperforms private baselines by up to 11.4 mAP points while retaining up to 92.5% of non-private performance.
May 7, 2026cs.LG

Trade-off Functions for DP-SGD with Subsampling based on Random Shuffling: Tight Upper and Lower Bounds

We derive a tight analysis of the trade-off function for Differentially Private Stochastic Gradient Descent (DP-SGD) with subsampling based on random shuffling within the ff-DP framework. Our analysis covers the regime σ≥3/ln⁡Mσ\geq \sqrt{3/\ln M}, where σσ is the noise multiplier and MM is the number of rounds within a single epoch. Unlike ff-DP analyses for Poisson subsampling, which yield non-closed implicit formulas that can be machine computed but are non-transparent, random shuffling admits a tight analysis yielding transparent and interpretable closed-form bounds. Our concrete bounds, derived via the Berry-Esseen theorem, are tight up to constant factors within the proof framework. We demonstrate worked parameter settings for a single epoch (E=1E=1) with a corresponding trade-off function ≥1−a−δ\geq 1-a-δ, that is, only δδ below the ideal random guessing diagonal 1−a1-a: For δ=1/100δ= 1/100 and σ=1σ= 1, roughly M≈1.14×106M \approx 1.14\times 10^6 rounds and N≈1.14×107N \approx 1.14\times 10^7 training samples suffice to achieve meaningful differential privacy. This is in contrast to recent negative results for the regime σ≤1/2ln⁡Mσ\leq 1/\sqrt{2 \ln M}. Our concrete bounds can be composed over multiple epochs leading to δδ having a linear in EE dependency, which restricts E=O(M)E=O(\sqrt{M}). To go beyond Berry--Esseen, we introduce a new proof technique based on a generalization of the law of large numbers that yields an asymptotic random guessing diagonal-limit result: if E=cM2ME=c_M^2M with cM→0c_M\to 0, then the EE-fold composed trade-off function satisfies f⊗E(a)→1−af^{\otimes E}(a)\to 1-a uniformly in a∈[0,1]a\in[0,1] with δδ having only an O(E)O(\sqrt{E}) dependency. We compare this asymptotic regime with the corresponding Poisson subsampling asymptotic, and highlight the characterization of explicit convergence rates as an open question.
Apr 20, 2026cs.CR

Tight Auditing of Differential Privacy in MST and AIM

State-of-the-art Differentially Private (DP) synthetic data generators such as MST and AIM are widely used, yet tightly auditing their privacy guarantees remains challenging. We introduce a Gaussian Differential Privacy (GDP)-based auditing framework that measures privacy via the full false-positive/false-negative tradeoff. Applied to MST and AIM under worst-case settings, our method provides the first tight audits in the strong-privacy regime. For (ε,δ)=(1,10−2)(ε,δ)=(1,10^{-2}), we obtain μemp≈0.43μ_{emp}\approx0.43 vs. implied μ=0.45μ=0.45, showing a small theory-practice gap. Our code is publicly available: https://github.com/sassoftware/dpmm.