Proving Differential Privacy via Probabilistic Couplings

Over the last decade, differential privacy has achieved widespread adoption within the privacy community. Moreover, it has attracted significant attention from the verification community, resulting in several successful tools for formally proving differential privacy. Although their technical approaches vary greatly, all existing tools rely on reasoning principles derived from the composition theorem of differential privacy. While this suffices to verify most common private algorithms, there are several important algorithms whose privacy analysis does not rely solely on the composition theorem. Their proofs are significantly more complex, and are currently beyond the reach of verification tools.In this paper, we develop compositional methods for formally verifying differential privacy for algorithms whose analysis goes beyond the composition theorem. Our methods are based on deep connections between differential privacy and probabilistic couplings, an established mathematical tool for reasoning about stochastic processes. Even when the composition theorem is not helpful, we can often prove privacy by a coupling argument.We demonstrate our methods on two algorithms: the Exponential mechanism and the Above Threshold algorithm, the critical component of the famous Sparse Vector algorithm. We verify these examples in a relational program logic apRHL+, which can construct approximate couplings. This logic extends the existing apRHL logic with more general rules for the Laplace mechanism and the one-sided Laplace mechanism, and new structural rules enabling pointwise reasoning about privacy; all the rules are inspired by the connection with coupling. While our paper is presented from a formal verification perspective, we believe that its main insight is of independent interest for the differential privacy community.

[1]  Toniann Pitassi,et al.  Preserving Statistical Validity in Adaptive Data Analysis , 2014, STOC.

[2]  Moni Naor,et al.  Pure Differential Privacy for Rectangle Queries via Private Partitions , 2015, ASIACRYPT.

[3]  Kunal Talwar,et al.  Mechanism Design via Differential Privacy , 2007, 48th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS'07).

[4]  Wang Yi,et al.  Probabilistic Extensions of Process Algebras , 2001, Handbook of Process Algebra.

[5]  Andreas Haeberlen,et al.  Linear dependent types for differential privacy , 2013, POPL.

[6]  Ashwin Machanavajjhala,et al.  On the Privacy Properties of Variants on the Sparse Vector Technique , 2015, ArXiv.

[7]  J. Snyder Coupling , 1998, Critical Inquiry.

[8]  Gilles Barthe,et al.  Computer-Aided Verification for Mechanism Design , 2015, WINE.

[9]  David Sands,et al.  Differential Privacy , 2015, POPL.

[10]  Benjamin C. Pierce,et al.  Distance makes the types grow stronger: a calculus for differential privacy , 2010, ICFP '10.

[11]  Gilles Barthe,et al.  Higher-Order Approximate Relational Refinement Types for Mechanism Design and Differential Privacy , 2014, POPL.

[12]  Aaron Roth,et al.  Differentially private combinatorial optimization , 2009, SODA '10.

[13]  T. Lindvall Lectures on the Coupling Method , 1992 .

[14]  Cynthia Dwork,et al.  Calibrating Noise to Sensitivity in Private Data Analysis , 2006, TCC.

[15]  Ilya Mironov,et al.  (Not So) Random Shuffles of RC4 , 2002, IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch..

[16]  Benjamin Grégoire,et al.  Formal certification of code-based cryptographic proofs , 2009, POPL '09.

[17]  Daniel A. Spielman,et al.  Spectral Graph Theory and its Applications , 2007, 48th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS'07).

[18]  Moni Naor,et al.  Our Data, Ourselves: Privacy Via Distributed Noise Generation , 2006, EUROCRYPT.

[19]  Gilles Barthe,et al.  Beyond Differential Privacy: Composition Theorems and Relational Logic for f-divergences between Probabilistic Programs , 2013, ICALP.

[20]  Benjamin Grégoire,et al.  Relational Reasoning via Probabilistic Coupling , 2015, LPAR.

[21]  Phillip Rogaway,et al.  On Generalized Feistel Networks , 2010, CRYPTO.

[22]  Huimin Lin,et al.  Metrics for Differential Privacy in Concurrent Systems , 2014, FORTE.

[23]  H. Thorisson Coupling, stationarity, and regeneration , 2000 .

[24]  Yuxin Deng,et al.  Logical, Metric, and Algorithmic Characterisations of Probabilistic Bisimulation , 2011, ArXiv.

[25]  Ninghui Li,et al.  Understanding the Sparse Vector Technique for Differential Privacy , 2016, Proc. VLDB Endow..

[26]  Dexter Kozen,et al.  Semantics of probabilistic programs , 1979, 20th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1979).

[27]  Gilles Barthe,et al.  Probabilistic Relational Reasoning for Differential Privacy , 2012, TOPL.

[28]  Kim G. Larsen,et al.  Bisimulation through probabilistic testing (preliminary report) , 1989, POPL '89.

[29]  Nick Benton,et al.  Simple relational correctness proofs for static analyses and program transformations , 2004, POPL.

[30]  Dilsun Kirli Kaynar,et al.  Formal Verification of Differential Privacy for Interactive Systems , 2011, ArXiv.

[31]  Gilles Barthe,et al.  Proving Differential Privacy in Hoare Logic , 2014, 2014 IEEE 27th Computer Security Foundations Symposium.

[32]  Aaron Roth,et al.  The Algorithmic Foundations of Differential Privacy , 2014, Found. Trends Theor. Comput. Sci..

[33]  Kim G. Larsen,et al.  Bisimulation through Probabilistic Testing , 1991, Inf. Comput..