Efficient privacy loss accounting for subsampling and random allocation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We consider the privacy amplification properties of a sampling scheme in which a user's data isused in k steps chosen randomly and uniformly from a sequence (or set) of t steps. This sampling scheme has been recently applied in the context of differentially private optimization (Chua et al., 2024a; Choquette-Choo et al., 2025) and communication-efficient high-dimensional private aggregation (Asi et al., 2026), where it was shown to have utility advantages over the standard Poisson sampling. Theoretical analyses of this sampling scheme (Feldman & Shenfeld, 2025; Dong et al., 2025) lead to bounds that are close to those of Poisson sampling, yet still have two significant shortcomings. First, in many practical settings, the resulting privacy parameters are not tight due to the approximation steps in the analysis. Second, the computed parameters are either the hockey stick or Renyi divergence, both of which introduce overheads when used in privacy loss accounting. In this work, we demonstrate that the privacy loss distribution (PLD) of random allocation applied to any differentially private algorithm can be computed efficiently. When applied to the Gaussian mechanism, our results demonstrate that the privacy-utility trade-off for random allocation is at least as good as that of Poisson subsampling. In particular, random allocation is better suited for training via DP-SGD. To support these computations, our work develops new tools for general privacy loss accounting based on a notion of PLD realization. This notion allows us to extend accurate privacy loss accounting to subsampling which previously required manual noise-mechanism-specific analysis.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 29 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Feb 2026.
Builds on
29 of 47 references.
References · 29
- 2016Deep Learning with Differential Privacycited by 2,682
- 2018Privacy Amplification by Subsampling: Tight Analyses via Couplings and Divergencescited by 237
- 2021Numerical Composition of Differential Privacycited by 174
- 2018Amplification by Shuffling: From Local to Central Differential Privacy via Anonymitycited by 163
- 2016Concentrated Differential Privacycited by 139
- 2018Distributed Differential Privacy via Shufflingcited by 115
- 2020Hiding Among the Clones: A Simple and Nearly Optimal Analysis of Privacy Amplification by Shufflingcited by 96
- 2021Optimal Accounting of Differential Privacy via Characteristic Functioncited by 83
- 2019The Privacy Blanket of the Shuffle Modelcited by 73
- 2020Tight Differential Privacy for Discrete-Valued Mechanisms and for the Subsampled Gaussian Mechanism Using FFTcited by 43
- 2022Composition of Differential Privacy & Privacy Amplification by Subsamplingcited by 42
- 2020Privacy Amplification via Random Check-Inscited by 39
17 more
- 2022Stronger Privacy Amplification by Shuffling for R'enyi and Approximate Differential Privacycited by 29
- 2023Privacy Amplification via Compression: Achieving the Optimal Privacy-Accuracy-Communication Trade-off in Distributed Mean Estimationcited by 22
- 2024How Private are DP-SGD Implementations?cited by 22
- 2025Scaling Laws for Differentially Private Language Modelscited by 22
- 2021Computing Differential Privacy Guarantees for Heterogeneous Compositions Using FFTcited by 20
- 2024Near Exact Privacy Amplification for Matrix Mechanismscited by 17
- 2021On the Renyi Differential Privacy of the Shuffle Modelcited by 16
- 2024Scalable DP-SGD: Shuffling vs. Poisson Subsamplingcited by 16
- 2025VaultGemma: A Differentially Private Gemma Modelcited by 14
- 2024Balls-and-Bins Sampling for DP-SGDcited by 13
- 2025Privacy amplification by random allocationcited by 13
- 2025Leveraging Randomness in Model and Data Partitioning for Privacy Amplificationcited by 7
- 2024To Shuffle or not to Shuffle: Auditing DP-SGD with Shufflingcited by 6
- 2026Privacy Amplification for BandMF via b-Min-Sep Subsamplingcited by 6
- 2026Sampling-Free Privacy Accounting for Matrix Mechanisms under Random Allocationcited by 3
- 2024Laplace Transform Interpretation of Differential Privacycited by 1
- 2025PREAMBLE: Private and Efficient Aggregation via Block Sparse Vectorscited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
- 2026Trade-off Functions for DP-SGD with Subsampling based on Random Allocation: Tight Upper and Lower Boundscited by 1
- 2026Less Random, More Private: What is the Optimal Subsampling Scheme for DP-SGD?cited by 1
- 2026Provable Robustness against Backdoor Attacks via the Primal-Dual Perspective on Differential Privacycited by 0
- 2026Provable Robustness against Backdoor Attacks via the Primal-Dual Perspective on Differential Privacy20 May 2026
- 2026Less Random, More Private: What is the Optimal Subsampling Scheme for DP-SGD?8 May 2026
- 2026Trade-off Functions for DP-SGD with Subsampling based on Random Allocation: Tight Upper and Lower Bounds7 May 2026