Trade-off Functions for DP-SGD with Subsampling based on Random Allocation: Tight Upper and Lower Bounds
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Within the f-DP framework, we derive a tight analysis of the trade-off function for Differentially Private Stochastic Gradient Descent (DP-SGD) with subsampling based on random allocation in which each sample is independently assigned to exactly one of M minibatches per epoch, each minibatch corresponding to one of the M SGD rounds within a single epoch. Our analysis holds under an explicit validity condition, whose hypotheses together force σ ≥ √3/ln M, where σ is the DP noise multiplier. Unlike f-DP analyses for Poisson subsampling, which yield non-closed implicit formulas that can be machine computed but are non-transparent, random allocation admits a tight analysis yielding transparent and interpretable closed-form bounds. For a single epoch, our concrete bounds, derived via the Berry-Esseen theorem, are tight up to constant factors. We demonstrate worked parameter settings for a single epoch (E=1) with a corresponding trade-off function ≥ 1-a-δ, that is, only δ below the ideal random guessing diagonal 1-a. For δ = 1/100 and σ = 1, roughly M ≈ 1.14× 106 rounds and N ≈ 1.14× 107 training samples suffice to achieve meaningful differential privacy. This is in contrast to recent negative results for the regime σ ≤ 1/√2 ln M for which no significant DP guarantee can exist.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 May 2026.
Builds on
26 of 36 references.
References · 26
- 2016Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Datacited by 7,592
- 2016Deep Learning with Differential Privacycited by 2,682
- 2016Concentrated Differential Privacy: Simplifications, Extensions, and Lower Boundscited by 339
- 2013The Composition Theorem for Differential Privacycited by 290
- 2018Privacy Amplification by Subsampling: Tight Analyses via Couplings and Divergencescited by 237
- 2018Subsampled R'enyi Differential Privacy and Analytical Moments Accountantcited by 234
- 2019R'enyi Differential Privacy of the Sampled Gaussian Mechanismcited by 199
- 2021Numerical Composition of Differential Privacycited by 174
- 2019Deep Learning with Gaussian Differential Privacycited by 112
- 2020Hiding Among the Clones: A Simple and Nearly Optimal Analysis of Privacy Amplification by Shufflingcited by 96
- 2022Connect the Dots: Tighter Discrete Approximations of Privacy Loss Distributionscited by 50
- 2020Privacy Amplification via Random Check-Inscited by 39
14 more
- 2024How Private are DP-SGD Implementations?cited by 22
- 2024Near Exact Privacy Amplification for Matrix Mechanismscited by 17
- 2024Scalable DP-SGD: Shuffling vs. Poisson Subsamplingcited by 16
- 2022Edgeworth Accountant: An Analytical Approach to Differential Privacy Compositioncited by 14
- 2020Sharp Composition Bounds for Gaussian Differential Privacy via Edgeworth Expansioncited by 13
- 2024Balls-and-Bins Sampling for DP-SGDcited by 13
- 2025Privacy amplification by random allocationcited by 13
- 2024Differentially Private Stochastic Gradient Descent with Fixed-Size Minibatches: Tighter RDP Guarantees with or without Replacementcited by 7
- 2025Leveraging Randomness in Model and Data Partitioning for Privacy Amplificationcited by 7
- 2025Gaussian DP for Reporting Differential Privacy Guarantees in Machine Learningcited by 6
- 2022Shuffle Gaussian Mechanism for Differential Privacycited by 4
- 2026Fundamental Limitations of Favorable Privacy-Utility Guarantees for DP-SGDcited by 4
- 2026Efficient privacy loss accounting for subsampling and random allocationcited by 3
- 2021Proactive DP: A Multple Target Optimization Framework for DP-SGDcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.