Beyond Laplace and Gaussian: Exploring the Generalized Gaussian Mechanism for Private Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Differential privacy (DP) is obtained by randomizing a data analysis algorithm, which necessarily introduces a tradeoff between its utility and privacy. Many DP mechanisms are built upon one of two underlying tools: Laplace and Gaussian additive noise mechanisms. We expand the search space of algorithms by investigating the Generalized Gaussian (GG) mechanism, which samples the additive noise term $x$ with probability proportional to $e^{-\frac{| x |}σ^β }$ for some $β\geq 1$ (denoted $GG_{β, σ}(f,D)$). The Laplace and Gaussian mechanisms are special cases of GG for $β=1$ and $β=2$, respectively. We prove that the full GG family satisfies differential privacy and extend the PRV accountant to support privacy loss computation for these mechanisms. We then instantiate the GG mechanism in two canonical private learning pipelines, PATE and DP-SGD. Empirically, we explore PATE and DP-SGD with the GG mechanism across the computationally feasible values of $β$: $β\in [1,2]$ for DP-SGD and $β\in [1,4]$ for PATE. For both mechanisms, we find that $β=2$ (Gaussian) performs as well as or better than other values in their computational tractable domains.This provides justification for the widespread adoption of the Gaussian mechanism in DP learning.
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 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".