mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Private Selection with Heterogeneous Sensitivities

arXiv 2501.05309 ↗First posted 9 Jan 2025cs.CR cs.DS cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Differentially private (DP) selection involves choosing a high-scoring candidate from a finite candidate pool, where each score depends on a sensitive dataset. This problem arises naturally in a variety of contexts including model selection, hypothesis testing, and within many DP algorithms. Classical methods, such as Report Noisy Max (RNM), assume all candidates' scores are equally sensitive to changes in a single individual's data, but this often isn't the case. To address this, algorithms like the Generalised Exponential Mechanism (GEM) leverage variability in candidate sensitivities. However, we observe that while these algorithms can outperform RNM in some situations, they may underperform in others - they can even perform worse than random selection. In this work, we explore how the distribution of scores and sensitivities impacts DP selection mechanisms. In all settings we study, we find that there exists a mechanism that utilises heterogeneity in the candidate sensitivities that outperforms standard mechanisms like RNM. However, no single mechanism uniformly outperforms RNM. We propose using the correlation between the scores and sensitivities as the basis for deciding which DP selection mechanism to use. Further, we design a slight variant of GEM, modified GEM that generally performs well whenever GEM performs poorly. Relying on the correlation heuristic we propose combined GEM, which adaptively chooses between GEM and modified GEM and outperforms both in polarised settings.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Jan 2025.

Builds on

15 of 26 references.

References · 15

  1. 2016Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Datacited by 7,592
  2. 2016Deep Learning with Differential Privacycited by 2,682
  3. 2019Embarrassingly Shallow Autoencoders for Sparse Datacited by 93
  4. 2018Differentially Private Contextual Linear Banditscited by 82
  5. 2018Private Selection from Private Candidatescited by 75
  6. 2018A Contextual Bandit Bake-offcited by 64
  7. 2020Locally Differentially Private (Contextual) Bandits Learningcited by 52
  8. 2021Generalized Linear Bandits with Local Differential Privacycited by 29
  9. 2020Local Differential Privacy for Regret Minimization in Reinforcement Learningcited by 22
  10. 2020Permute-and-Flip: A new mechanism for differentially private selectioncited by 22
  11. 2021The Permute-and-Flip Mechanism is Identical to Report-Noisy-Max with Exponential Noisecited by 14
  12. 2022Popularity Bias in Collaborative Filtering-Based Multimedia Recommender Systemscited by 8
3 more
  1. 2014The Large Margin Mechanism for Differentially Private Maximizationcited by 7
  2. 2015Efficient Lipschitz Extensions for High-Dimensional Graph Statistics and Node Private Degree Distributionscited by 7
  3. 2023Randomized algorithms for precise measurement of differentially-private, personalized recommendationscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.