eISSN: Applied editor@oxfordianfoundation.com

American Journal of Data Science and Machine Learning

Open Access Peer Review International
Open Access

Privacy Utility Geometry and Optimal Rates in Stochastic Convex Optimization under Differential Privacy

Sorbonne University, France

Abstract

The rapid proliferation of data driven decision systems has intensified the demand for rigorous privacy guarantees that do not unduly compromise statistical utility. Differential privacy has emerged as the gold standard for quantifying privacy risk, offering mathematically provable protections against adversarial inference. At the same time, stochastic convex optimization forms the algorithmic backbone of modern machine learning and statistical estimation. The intersection of these two domains has given rise to a rich theoretical literature exploring optimal error rates, algorithmic constructions, geometric tradeoffs, and refined privacy notions such as concentrated and Renyi differential privacy. This article develops a unified and comprehensive theoretical account of private stochastic convex optimization, grounded strictly in foundational and contemporary works on differential privacy, local privacy, private empirical risk minimization, optimal mechanisms, metric geometry of privacy utility tradeoffs, and Langevin based stochastic processes. The paper synthesizes contributions from classical noise calibration and distributed noise generation to modern advances in concentrated and Renyi privacy, and further connects them to minimax optimality under local constraints and to geometric interpretations via Wasserstein metrics and Sobolev norms. We analyze how optimal rates for private empirical risk minimization are achieved, why certain noise distributions such as Laplace mechanisms are optimal under specific constraints, and how Langevin dynamics provide a natural probabilistic interpretation of privacy preserving optimization. We also examine the role of random walks and private measures in synthetic data generation, as well as the implications of mechanism design and distributed noise for economic and multi agent environments. The results demonstrate that optimal private stochastic convex optimization is fundamentally shaped by geometric and probabilistic structures that govern both information leakage and statistical efficiency. By providing an integrative perspective across privacy definitions, algorithmic constructions, and geometric insights, this work identifies deep structural principles underlying privacy utility tradeoffs and outlines future research directions for scalable, theoretically optimal, and practically robust private learning systems.

Keywords

References

πŸ“„ 1. Bassily, R., Feldman, V., Talwar, K., and Guha Thakurta, A. Private stochastic convex optimization with optimal rates. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32:11250 to 11259, 2019.
πŸ“„ 2. Bassily, R., Smith, A., and Thakurta, A. Private empirical risk minimization: Efficient algorithms and tight error bounds. Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 55th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 464 to 473, 2014.
πŸ“„ 3. Boedihardjo, M., Strohmer, T., and Vershynin, R. Metric geometry of the privacy utility tradeoff. arXiv:2405.00329, 2024.
πŸ“„ 4. Boedihardjo, M., Strohmer, T., and Vershynin, R. Private measures, random walks, and synthetic data. Probability Theory and Related Fields, 189(1 to 2):569 to 611, 2024.
πŸ“„ 5. Bun, M., and Steinke, T. Concentrated differential privacy: Simplifications, extensions, and lower bounds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9985, 635 to 658, 2016.
πŸ“„ 6. Cheng, X., Yin, D., Bartlett, P., and Jordan, M. Stochastic gradient and Langevin processes. Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, 1810 to 1819, 2020.
πŸ“„ 7. Duchi, J. C., Jordan, M. I., and Wainwright, M. J. Local privacy and statistical minimax rates. Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 54th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 429 to 438, 2013.
πŸ“„ 8. Dwork, C., Kenthapadi, K., McSherry, F., Mironov, I., and Naor, M. Our data, ourselves: Privacy via distributed noise generation. Advances in Cryptology EUROCRYPT 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4004, 486 to 503, 2006.
πŸ“„ 9. Dwork, C., McSherry, F., Nissim, K., and Smith, A. Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis. Theory of Cryptography TCC 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3876, 265 to 284, 2006.
πŸ“„ 10. Dwork, C., and Roth, A. The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy. Foundations and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science, 9(3 to 4):211 to 407, 2014.
πŸ“„ 11. Dwork, C., and Rothblum, G. N. Concentrated differential privacy. arXiv:1603.01887, 2016.
πŸ“„ 12. Evfimievski, A., Gehrke, J., and Srikant, R. Limiting privacy breaches in privacy preserving data mining. Proceedings of the Twenty Second ACM SIGMOD SIGACT SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, 211 to 222, 2003.
πŸ“„ 13. Kasiviswanathan, S. P., Lee, H. K., Nissim, K., Raskhodnikova, S., and Smith, A. What can we learn privately? SIAM Journal on Computing, 40(3):793 to 826, 2011.
πŸ“„ 14. Koufogiannis, F., Han, S., and Pappas, G. J. Optimality of the Laplace mechanism in differential privacy. arXiv:1504.00065, 2015.
πŸ“„ 15. McSherry, F., and Talwar, K. Mechanism design via differential privacy. 48th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 94 to 103, 2007.
πŸ“„ 16. Mironov, I. Renyi differential privacy. 2017 IEEE 30th Computer Security Foundations Symposium, 263 to 275, 2017.
πŸ“„ 17. Peyre, R. Comparison between W2 distance and H minus 1 norm, and localization of Wasserstein distance. Control Optimization and Calculus of Variations, 24(4):1489 to 1501, 2018.
πŸ“„ 18. Welling, M., and Teh, Y. W. Bayesian learning via stochastic gradient Langevin dynamics. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning, 681 to 688, 2011.
Views: 0    Downloads: 0
Views
Downloads