ResearchTrend.AI
  • Papers
  • Communities
  • Events
  • Blog
  • Pricing
Papers
Communities
Social Events
Terms and Conditions
Pricing
Parameter LabParameter LabTwitterGitHubLinkedInBlueskyYoutube

© 2025 ResearchTrend.AI, All rights reserved.

  1. Home
  2. Papers
  3. 2406.03802
43
1

Continual Counting with Gradual Privacy Expiration

6 June 2024
Joel Daniel Andersson
Monika Henzinger
Rasmus Pagh
Teresa Anna Steiner
Jalaj Upadhyay
ArXivPDFHTML
Abstract

Differential privacy with gradual expiration models the setting where data items arrive in a stream and at a given time ttt the privacy loss guaranteed for a data item seen at time (t−d)(t-d)(t−d) is ϵg(d)\epsilon g(d)ϵg(d), where ggg is a monotonically non-decreasing function. We study the fundamental continual (binary) counting\textit{continual (binary) counting}continual (binary) counting problem where each data item consists of a bit, and the algorithm needs to output at each time step the sum of all the bits streamed so far. For a stream of length TTT and privacy without\textit{without}without expiration continual counting is possible with maximum (over all time steps) additive error O(log⁡2(T)/ε)O(\log^2(T)/\varepsilon)O(log2(T)/ε) and the best known lower bound is Ω(log⁡(T)/ε)\Omega(\log(T)/\varepsilon)Ω(log(T)/ε); closing this gap is a challenging open problem. We show that the situation is very different for privacy with gradual expiration by giving upper and lower bounds for a large set of expiration functions ggg. Specifically, our algorithm achieves an additive error of O(log⁡(T)/ϵ) O(\log(T)/\epsilon)O(log(T)/ϵ) for a large set of privacy expiration functions. We also give a lower bound that shows that if CCC is the additive error of any ϵ\epsilonϵ-DP algorithm for this problem, then the product of CCC and the privacy expiration function after 2C2C2C steps must be Ω(log⁡(T)/ϵ)\Omega(\log(T)/\epsilon)Ω(log(T)/ϵ). Our algorithm matches this lower bound as its additive error is O(log⁡(T)/ϵ)O(\log(T)/\epsilon)O(log(T)/ϵ), even when g(2C)=O(1)g(2C) = O(1)g(2C)=O(1). Our empirical evaluation shows that we achieve a slowly growing privacy loss with significantly smaller empirical privacy loss for large values of ddd than a natural baseline algorithm.

View on arXiv
Comments on this paper