Timeline for About the definition of "differential privacy" in communication complexity
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 17, 2021 at 7:16 | history | edited | Discrete lizard♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Jul 9, 2015 at 19:59 | comment | added | Yuval Filmus | It's an excellent idea to use Definition 2.1. Definition 2.3 is just an elaboration of Definition 2.1, explaining what gets into $p$, the output of the protocol (it's not only the transcript!). | |
| Jul 9, 2015 at 19:53 | answer | added | Yuval Filmus | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 9, 2015 at 19:49 | comment | added | user6818 | @YuvalFilmus My feeling is that definition 2.3 is a "new" definition of differential-privacy when applied to communication protocols and probably its not a good idea to use 2.1 in this context. May be you can see this question of mine : cs.stackexchange.com/questions/44176/… | |
| Jul 9, 2015 at 19:47 | comment | added | user6818 | Seems like I am missing a lot of links here! So what is the "mechanism" and the Hamming weight adjacency in a communication protocol? This is precisely what I was asking in the question that in a communication protocol what can at all be differential private! | |
| Jul 9, 2015 at 19:15 | comment | added | Yuval Filmus | Differential privacy is defined on page 4 (Definition 2.1). Take it as an exercise to deduce your condition from that definition. | |
| Jul 9, 2015 at 19:04 | comment | added | user6818 | @YuvalFilmus Isn't the last but one equation on page 16 the definition of an "$\epsilon$-differentially private" protocol? (the first equation below theorem 4.9) ? Or is this derived from some other definition which is more fundamental? It would be great if you could help piece this out! | |
| Jul 9, 2015 at 17:40 | history | edited | D.W.♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Clean up latex.
|
| Jul 9, 2015 at 13:25 | comment | added | Yuval Filmus | I can't find this definition there. Instead, they have the usual definition of differential privacy. On page 16 in the version people.cs.umass.edu/~mcgregor/papers/11-2pdp.pdf I see that they are deriving your condition as a consequence of differential privacy. | |
| Jul 9, 2015 at 8:49 | history | edited | Raphael |
edited tags; edited tags
|
|
| Jul 9, 2015 at 7:51 | comment | added | user6818 | @YuvalFilmus It would be great if you could kindly explain why this definition makes sense and what is the idea it is trying to capture. | |
| Jul 9, 2015 at 7:05 | comment | added | user6818 | "The Limits of two-party differential privacy" by Toniann, Vadan, Reingold, Talwar, Mironov, McGregor | |
| Jul 9, 2015 at 4:17 | comment | added | Yuval Filmus | Where have you seen this definition? It doesn't make much sense, though it is implied by the usual definition (but seems much weaker). | |
| Jul 9, 2015 at 4:01 | history | edited | user6818 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Jul 9, 2015 at 3:47 | history | edited | user6818 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body; edited title
|
| Jul 9, 2015 at 3:39 | history | asked | user6818 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |