Sample-Optimal Locally Private Hypothesis Selection and the Provable Benefits of Interactivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the problem of hypothesis selection under the constraint of local differential privacy. Given a class $\mathcal{F}$ of $k$ distributions and a set of i.i.d. samples from an unknown distribution $h$, the goal of hypothesis selection is to pick a distribution $\hat{f}$ whose total variation distance to $h$ is comparable with the best distribution in $\mathcal{F}$ (with high probability). We devise an $\varepsilon$-locally-differentially-private ($\varepsilon$-LDP) algorithm that uses $Θ\left(\frac{k}{α^2\min \{\varepsilon^2,1\}}\right)$ samples to guarantee that $d_{TV}(h,\hat{f})\leq α+ 9 \min_{f\in \mathcal{F}}d_{TV}(h,f)$ with high probability. This sample complexity is optimal for $\varepsilon<1$, matching the lower bound of Gopi et al. (2020). All previously known algorithms for this problem required $Ω\left(\frac{k\log k}{α^2\min \{ \varepsilon^2 ,1\}} \right)$ samples to work. Moreover, our result demonstrates the power of interaction for $\varepsilon$-LDP hypothesis selection. Namely, it breaks the known lower bound of $Ω\left(\frac{k\log k}{α^2\min \{ \varepsilon^2 ,1\}} \right)$ for the sample complexity of non-interactive hypothesis selection. Our algorithm breaks this barrier using only $Θ(\log \log k)$ rounds of interaction. To prove our results, we define the notion of \emph{critical queries} for a Statistical Query Algorithm (SQA) which may be of independent interest. Informally, an SQA is said to use a small number of critical queries if its success relies on the accuracy of only a small number of queries it asks. We then design an LDP algorithm that uses a smaller number of critical queries.
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 | 0.014 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".