The Hardness of Being Private
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1989 Kushilevitz initiated the study of iinformation-theoretic privacy within the context of communication complexity. Unfortunately, it has been shown that most interesting functions are not privately computable. The unattainability of perfect privacy for many functions motivated the study of approximate privacy. Feigenbaum et al. define notions of worst-case as well as average-case approximate privacy, and present several interesting upper bounds, and some open problems for further study. In this paper, we obtain asymptotically tight bounds on the tradeoffs between both the worst-case and average-case approximate privacy of protocols and their communication cost for Vickrey-auctions. Further, we relate the notion of average-case approximate privacy to other measures based on information cost of protocols. This enables us to prove exponential lower bounds on the subjective approximate privacy of protocols for computing the Intersection function, independent of its communication cost. This proves a conjecture of Feigenbaum et al.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".