Cactus Mechanisms: Optimal Differential Privacy Mechanisms in the Large-Composition Regime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most differential privacy mechanisms are applied (i.e., composed) numerous times on sensitive data. We study the design of optimal differential privacy mechanisms in the limit of a large number of compositions. As a consequence of the law of large numbers, in this regime the best privacy mechanism is the one that minimizes the Kullback-Leibler divergence between the conditional output distributions of the mechanism given two different inputs. We formulate an optimization problem to minimize this divergence subject to a cost constraint on the noise. We first prove that additive mechanisms are optimal. Since the optimization problem is infinite dimensional, it cannot be solved directly; nevertheless, we quantize the problem to derive nearoptimal additive mechanisms that we call "cactus mechanisms" due to their shape. We show that our quantization approach can be arbitrarily close to an optimal mechanism. Surprisingly, for quadratic cost, the Gaussian mechanism is strictly suboptimal compared to this cactus mechanism. Finally, we provide numerical results which indicate that cactus mechanisms outperform Gaussian and Laplace mechanisms for a finite number of compositions.The full proofs can be found in the extended version at [1]. This paper is Part I in a pair of papers, where Part II is [2].
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 | 0.018 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".