Revealing the True Cost of Locally Differentially Private Protocols: An Auditing Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the existing literature on Differential Privacy (DP) auditing predominantly focuses on the centralized model (e.g., in auditing the DP-SGD algorithm), we advocate for extending this approach to audit Local DP (LDP). To achieve this, we introduce the LDP-Auditor framework for empirically estimating the privacy loss of locally differentially private mechanisms. This approach leverages recent advances in designing privacy attacks against LDP frequency estimation protocols. More precisely, through the analysis of numerous state-of-the-art LDP protocols, we extensively explore the factors influencing the privacy audit, such as the impact of different encoding and perturbation functions. Additionally, we investigate the influence of the domain size and the theoretical privacy loss parameters $ε$ and $δ$ on local privacy estimation. In-depth case studies are also conducted to explore specific aspects of LDP auditing, including distinguishability attacks on LDP protocols for longitudinal studies and multidimensional data. Finally, we present a notable achievement of our LDP-Auditor framework, which is the discovery of a bug in a state-of-the-art LDP Python package. Overall, our LDP-Auditor framework as well as our study offer valuable insights into the sources of randomness and information loss in LDP protocols. These contributions collectively provide a realistic understanding of the local privacy loss, which can help practitioners in selecting the LDP mechanism and privacy parameters that best align with their specific requirements. We open-sourced LDP-Auditor in \url{https://github.com/hharcolezi/ldp-audit}.
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 | 0.028 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| 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".