Linear and Range Counting under Metric-based Local Differential Privacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Local differential privacy (LDP) enables private data sharing and analytics without the need for a trusted data collector. Error-optimal primitives (for, e.g., estimating means and item frequencies) under LDP have been well studied. For analytical tasks such as range queries, however, the best known error bound is dependent on the domain size of private data, which is potentially prohibitive. This deficiency is inherent as LDP protects the same level of indistinguishability between any pair of private data values for each data downer.In this paper, we utilize an extension of -LDP called MetricLDP or E-LDP, where a metric E defines heterogeneous privacy guarantees for different pairs of private data values and thus provides a more flexible knob than does to relax LDP and tune utility-privacy trade-offs. We show that, under such privacy relaxations, for analytical workloads such as linear counting, multi-dimensional range counting queries, and quantile queries, we can achieve significant gains in utility. In particular, for range queries under E-LDP where the metric E is the L <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sup> distance function scaled by , we design mechanisms with errors independent on the domain sizes; instead, their errors depend on the metric E, which specifies in what granularity the private data is protected. We believe that the primitives we design for ELDP will be useful in developing mechanisms for other analytical tasks, and encourage the adoption of LDP in practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.046 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".