Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Differential privacy and Sublinear time are incompatible sometimes

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2407.07262 v2 pith:UQ3MPBLF submitted 2024-07-09 cs.DS cs.CR

classification cs.DScs.CR
keywords algorithmsalgorithmsublinearsublinear-timedifferentialdifferentiallydifferentially-privateprivacy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Differential privacy and sublinear algorithms are both rapidly emerging algorithmic themes in times of big data analysis. Although recent works have shown the existence of differentially private sublinear algorithms for many problems including graph parameter estimation and clustering, little is known regarding hardness results on these algorithms. In this paper, we initiate the study of lower bounds for problems that aim for both differentially-private and sublinear-time algorithms. Our main result is the incompatibility of both the desiderata in the general case. In particular, we prove that a simple problem based on one-way marginals yields both a differentially-private algorithm, as well as a sublinear-time algorithm, but does not admit a ``strictly'' sublinear-time algorithm that is also differentially private.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. TCS-BENCH: Benchmarking State-of-the-Art Generative AI Theoretical Computer Science Research Ability

    cs.CL 2026-08 reject novelty 7.0 of 10

    The paper introduces TCS-Bench, a 300-task proof-generation benchmark from top TCS papers, and reports frontier LLM accuracies from 30% to 68% using an automated verifier.

Pith tools