Private Generative Bootstrap via Blocking

Jinwon Sohn; Veronika Ro\v{c}kov\'a

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Private Generative Bootstrap via Blocking

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a single noisy training run over block-level bootstrap weights yields a differentially private generative Bayesian bootstrap, with unlimited post-processed posterior draws and a data-free concentration calibration that

desk verdict The blocked private bootstrap is a genuine contribution with real theory; the main caveat is a load-bearing PL assumption and no code, so it deserves peer review rather than desk rejection. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02480 v1 pith:YTT6UQNI submitted 2026-08-03 stat.ML cs.LGstat.ME

Jinwon Sohn , Veronika Ročková This is my paper · ORCID

classification stat.MLcs.LGstat.ME MSC 62F4062F1568T0768P27

keywords differentialprivacyBayesianbootstrapblockamortizedinferenceprivateuncertaintyquantificationgenerativequantileregressionDirichletweights

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

PGBB replaces per-record bootstrap weights with random weights assigned to S blocks, so each individual's worst-case contribution drops to 1/nS. A neural generator is trained once with Gaussian noise added to the gradient, making the whole training mechanism (ε,δ)-differentially private; after training, drawing posterior samples from fresh weights is post-processing and costs no additional privacy budget. The paper proves that the noisy generator converges to the exact blocked-bootstrap target under a gradient-dominance condition, and that the error splits into optimization, subsampling/Monte Carlo, privacy-noise, and approximation terms. It also derives a closed-form, data-free concentration parameter γ*(n,S) that makes the blocked posterior dispersion match the ordinary Bayesian bootstrap to O(n^{-3/2}), and shows one trained generator can answer an entire family of loss-based decision rules under a single privacy budget. A sympathetic reader would care because this promises private uncertainty intervals without specifying a likelihood and without paying privacy cost for each additional posterior draw.

What carries the argument

The central object is the blocked Dirichlet push-forward map: weights u∼Dirichlet(γ1_S) are assigned to S random equal-sized blocks, giving each record w̄_i = u_{π(i)}/n_S, and an amortized neural generator G^DP_φ(u,τ) is trained with Gaussian-perturbed weighted gradients. The block structure caps per-record influence, the Dirichlet-aware Rényi accountant converts the random weights into reduced noise requirements, the gradient-dominance condition supplies the convergence bound, and the closed-form concentration γ*(n,S) repairs the under-dispersion that blocking would otherwise cause.

What would settle it

Train PGBB on a modest dataset with a loss and network for which the ratio ∥∇L∥²/(L−L*) along the noisy trajectory is computed; if this ratio can be driven to zero (or the training loss stops decreasing while the gradient remains large), the gradient-dominance condition underpinning Theorem 3.1 fails. A direct finite-sample check is to compute exact blocked-bootstrap solutions θ*_Block(w̄) by exhaustive reoptimization for small n and S, evaluate the trained generator's mean squared error and variance, and test whether the error shrinks at the claimed rate and whether γ* actually matches the or

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the block bootstrap can be converted into a private generative sampler. Instead of giving each record its own Dirichlet weight, PGBB randomly partitions the data into S blocks and assigns one Dirichlet weight to each block; this caps the worst-case contribution of a single record at 1/nS, so less Gaussian noise is needed during training. The noisy gradient training is shown to be (ε,δ)-DP with an accountant that exploits the random weights' Beta moments, and because the trained generator is released rather than the data, every subsequent evaluation at fresh weights is post-processing. The authors prove convergence of the last iterate to the exact blocked-boo

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the assumed gradient-dominance condition on the Dirichlet-averaged neural objective, which the paper neither derives from its other assumptions nor checks empirically for the ReLU networks used in experiments; if that condition fails, the convergence bound is vacuous and the trained generator may not track the blocked-bootstrap target.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Once a generator is trained under (ε,δ)-DP, any number of posterior draws and any summary computed from them inherit the same privacy guarantee by post-processing; the privacy budget does not grow with the number of released samples.
A single PGBB fit can report quantile-regression posteriors across all levels τ under one (ε,δ) budget, whereas running a separate private procedure per level would compose and inflate the budget.
Using γ*(n,S) removes the leading variance gap between blocked and ordinary Bayesian bootstrap with no data-dependent tuning and no extra privacy cost; the blocked posterior coverage returns to nominal in the reported simulations.
Under misspecification (heavy-tailed or contaminated errors), loss-based PGBB gives narrower and better-calibrated intervals than likelihood-based private Bayesian alternatives in the reported experiments.
The convergence theorem covers the non-private generator (σ=0) as a special case, giving a common analysis for amortized bootstrap with and without privacy noise.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The convergence guarantee is conditional on a gradient-dominance condition for the Dirichlet-averaged neural objective, which the paper does not verify empirically for its ReLU networks; a reader applying the method should check that condition on the specific loss and network class, since a violation would make the error bound vacuous.
The data-free calibration principle suggests a general design: choose the block structure for privacy and then repair posterior fidelity in the weight distribution rather than in the noise mechanism; the paper notes that the same idea extends to pseudo-sample posterior bootstraps, where larger prior concentration can further reduce privacy noise.
The Dirichlet-aware privacy amplification reported here implies that other randomized-weight private bootstrap schemes could gain by integrating over the weight law instead of using worst-case per-record bounds.
The paper itself notes the computational cost of fitting a large amortized generator (e.g., GPU time); the privacy and statistical guarantees do not address wall-clock cost, so practical adoption depends on whether one private training run is cheaper than repeated private resampling.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First, know this: PGBB is a real advance, not an incremental patch. The blocking idea is simple and sensible—cap per-record weight by grouping, account for Dirichlet randomness in the privacy analysis, calibrate concentration data-free, and amortize so posterior draws are post-processing. The paper actually does the analysis. The RDP accountant in Proposition 2.2 goes beyond a standard DP-SGD application, Theorem 4.1 and Proposition 4.1 quantify the blocking distortion and give the gamma_star calibration, and the joint quantile generator is a genuinely useful bonus. The simulations are extensive and the baselines are reasonable, including likelihood-based private Bayesian methods under misspecification. The SM contains real work: moment bounds, Stein-type arguments, detailed privacy accounting, and explicit constants. Credit where it is due: this fills a real gap for private, likelihood-free, budget-free uncertainty quantification.

Soft spots, in proportion. The main one is exactly what the stress-test note identifies: Theorem 3.1 is conditional on the Polyak-Lojasiewicz condition, and that condition is assumed rather than derived. The paper uses ReLU networks in experiments while the convergence theory assumes twice-differentiable activations. If PL fails, the geometric contraction in (6) is vacuous, and Corollary 4.1 inherits an unquantified Delta_T through its variance bound. This is load-bearing for the theoretical UQ claim, not a small technicality. It is a standard assumption in nonconvex optimization, and the empirical results are not invalidated, but a referee should ask for gradient-norm diagnostics or an acknowledgment that the theorem is conditional.

Two other concerns, smaller but real. No code or data pipeline is released, so the neural-network experiments and the intricate accountant are not independently reproducible as they stand. And I could not fully verify every step of the privacy accountant in the SM, though there is enough detail that a specialist referee can audit it rather than take it on faith. I would not call either concern fatal.

Who this is for: people doing private uncertainty quantification, amortized Bayesian computation, or bootstraps under differential privacy. The method is a meaningful contribution and the theory is above the usual bar. I would send it to peer review, not desk reject. The main requested revisions would be PL diagnostics, code and seeds, and either extending the smoothness assumptions or explicitly weakening the theoretical claims for ReLU activations.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the Private Generative Bayesian Bootstrap (PGBB), a differentially private amortized Bayesian bootstrap based on block-level Dirichlet weights. The method trains a neural generator G_φ(u) by adding Gaussian noise to weighted loss gradients, so that subsequent posterior draws are post-processing and consume no additional privacy budget. The paper contributes (i) a DP accountant that exploits the randomness of block Dirichlet weights (Prop. 2.2, Thm. 2.1), (ii) a convergence analysis of the noisy amortized training toward the blocked-bootstrap target (Thm. 3.1), (iii) an analysis of the Wasserstein gap between blocked and ordinary Bayesian bootstrap posteriors with a data-free concentration calibration γ⋆(n,S) (Thm. 4.1, Prop. 4.1), and (iv) a joint-training extension covering families of loss-based decision rules under one privacy budget (Sec. 2.5). Simulation and real-data experiments on heavy-tailed regression, exponential-family means, quantile regression on U.S. Census returns to schooling, and U.S. natality birthweights illustrate the method's practical behavior.

Significance. If the theoretical results hold as stated, PGBB is a substantial contribution to private uncertainty quantification: it combines formal DP with budget-free posterior draws, avoids specifying a data-generating model, and supports multiple decision rules from a single private run. The paper ships unusually detailed proofs in the Supplementary Material, including explicit moment bounds, a Dirichlet-aware Rényi accountant, and a finite-sample Wasserstein bound, which are concrete strengths. The proposed γ⋆ calibration is genuinely data-free and is shown to remove the leading variance mismatch between blocked and ordinary Bayesian bootstrap. However, the central UQ guarantee is conditional on an unverified Polyak-Łojasiewicz condition and on an SGD update rule that the experiments do not use; these gaps make the current version unsuitable for acceptance without revision.

major comments (3)

The PL condition ∥∇L(φ)∥² ≥ 2μ_L(L(φ)−L⋆) is assumed, not derived from (A1)–(A5), and no empirical diagnostic is provided to indicate that it holds for the amortized objective with the ReLU MLP used in experiments (SM S3.2). This is load-bearing: Corollary 4.1 bounds the trained generator's posterior variance via Δ_T(γ)^{1/2}, which is controlled only through Theorem 3.1. If PL fails, the geometric transient in (6) does not contract and the guarantee reduces to a noise floor plus approximation gap, which does not establish convergence to the blocked-bootstrap target. Moreover, Section 3 explicitly assumes twice-differentiable activations, whereas SM S3.2 uses ReLU networks; the theorem therefore does not even apply to the experimental architecture. Please add a verification of PL for the actual objective/architecture (e.g., monitoring ∥∇L∥² against L−L⋆ during training), or restrict the
The convergence analysis in Theorem 3.1 and SM S2.4 is for the exact SGD update φ_{t+1}=φ_t−η∇g_t with a fixed step size and no momentum. In contrast, all simulations and real-data experiments in Section 5 and SM S3.2–S3.3 use the Adam optimizer with learning-rate decay after perturbing gradients. Adam is not covered by the descent lemma and variance-bound argument in Lemma S2.13. Thus Theorem 3.1 does not certify the generators actually trained in the paper. Please either extend the analysis to Adam (or a variant with the same convergence guarantees) or use vanilla SGD in the experiments so that theory and practice match.
The privacy accountant is derived for the collection of iterates {φ_t} under replace-one adjacency, but the released object is the final iterate φ_T. Releasing the entire trajectory is stronger than necessary; this is conservative and not a flaw. However, the paper should make clear that the formal DP guarantee in Prop. 2.2 applies to the training mechanism as a whole, and that practical use of Adam or other optimizers does not affect the privacy guarantee but does affect whether Theorem 3.1's convergence analysis applies. Please add this clarification.

minor comments (5)

Notation: 'Denote by π : [n]→[S] a blocking process, where [N]={1,...,N}' should be [n], not [N]. Also, n_S is overloaded: it denotes both the block size n/S and the subindex in n_S; please choose a single notation.
The sentence 'It is well-known that, if G⋆ is continuous, then G_φ is a universal approximator' is imprecise; the cited Hanin (2019) establishes a specific width-bounded ReLU approximation result, not a general universal-approximation statement for all continuous G⋆. Please cite a matching universal-approximation theorem for the activation class actually used.
The Wasserstein bound in (7) contains the term |1−√((S−1)(n+1)/((Sγ+1)(n−1)))|. This term vanishes at γ=γ⋆, but the displayed bound also includes (Sγ+1)^{−1/2} and n^{−1/2}, so the text 'the same bound implies that the unscaled blocked and ordinary bootstrap laws become close for any fixed S' should explicitly state that the closeness is after rescaling by n^{1/2}, not in the original parameter scale.
The comparison with DP-Bootstrap releases only 20 private bootstrap samples, while PGBB releases 2,000 posterior draws. This is a deliberate feature of PGBB, but the asymmetry should be stated more prominently so readers do not conflate the number of released draws with the privacy budget.
SM S3.2 states the PGBB generator is a 'three-hidden-layer width-256 ReLU MLP'. Since Section 3 assumes twice-differentiable activations, this inconsistency should be resolved (see major comment). At minimum, the experimental section should note the theoretical results are for smooth activations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DP guarantee, convergence bound, and blocking calibration are derived from first principles; self-citations are background, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims do not reduce to their inputs. The (epsilon,delta)-DP guarantee (Prop. 2.2) is proven from an explicit Dirichlet-aware Renyi accountant built on Birrell et al. (2024) and Mironov (2017), with Beta-moment formulas derived in SM S2.2 rather than assumed. The convergence analysis (Thm. 3.1) is a bona fide conditional theorem: given the explicitly stated PL inequality and (A1)-(A5), the proof unrolls a descent lemma and bounds the noise floor; the PL condition is an assumption, not an imported or refitted conclusion, so its unverified status is a correctness caveat, not circularity. The posterior distortion result (Thm. 4.1/Prop. 4.1) derives the Wasserstein bound and the variance-matching gamma*(n,S) from first-order linearization, Dirichlet moment identities, and Stein-method normal approximation, with no fitted parameter relabeled as a prediction. Corollary 4.1 just combines these objects. Empirical sections validate against non-private references and independent baselines. The paper does cite prior work by current author Rockova (Nie & Rockova 2023; O'Hagan & Rockova 2025) and builds on the amortized-bootstrap objective of Shin et al. (2024), but these citations supply background machinery, not the paper's conclusions, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The only notable caveat is the unverified PL condition in Thm. 3.1, which weakens the advertised bound but does not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on standard compactness/smoothness/strong-convexity assumptions (A1-A5), the bounded-gradient condition C, the PL condition for the amortized objective, and the bounded network parameter class. No new physical or ontological entities are introduced; S, γ, q, K, C, and the truncation orders are user-chosen hyperparameters, with γ⋆ providing a data-free default for γ.

free parameters (6)

Block count S = 20 (simulations), 5 (real data)
Chooses the privacy-utility trade-off; larger S (smaller blocks) worsens privacy but reduces posterior distortion. Not fitted to data; set by hand.
Dirichlet concentration γ = γ⋆(n,S) by default; γ=1 in exponential-family experiments
Default is the data-free variance-matching formula; experiments also use γ=1, affecting posterior dispersion.
Poisson subsampling rate q = 0.1, 0.2, 0.01
Enters the DP accountant and convergence bounds; set per experiment.
Monte Carlo replicates K = 1, 5, 10
Number of Dirichlet draws per update; K-invariance is asserted.
Gradient bound C = C_H for Huber regression; C=8 for exponential-family; C=0.9·B_x·√p for quantile
Clipping/bounding constant that sets the sensitivity; user-chosen from loss and domain bounds.
Truncation orders (J,m) for the accountant = J=32, m=5 (default)
Numerical truncation for the RDP accountant; chosen for numerical stability.

assumptions (9)

domain assumption (A1) X_1,...,X_n i.i.d. from F supported on a compact set X⊂R^{d_X}.
Used in Theorem 3.1's loss derivative bounds and Theorem 4.1; stated in Section 3.
domain assumption (A2) Θ⊂R^{d_θ} convex and compact; the population minimizer is unique and lies in the interior of Θ.
Ensures existence, uniqueness, and stationarity of the decision rule; stated in Section 3.
domain assumption (A3) l(x,θ) is C^3 in (x,θ) with uniformly bounded derivatives up to order three.
Provides smoothness used for the descent lemma and linearization; stated in Section 3.
domain assumption (A4) l(x,θ) is convex in θ for each x.
Ensures the weighted risk is convex, used in Lemma S2.14 bounds; stated in Section 3.
domain assumption (A5) The population Hessian H_∞ is strongly convex at θ*_∞ and the score second moment Σ_∞ is finite.
Used for the localization arguments and Berry-Esseen bounds; stated in Section 3.
domain assumption The loss gradient is uniformly bounded, sup_{x,g}∥∇l(g,x)∥≤C.
Underlies both the DP sensitivity analysis and the convergence variance bounds; the paper notes clipping can enforce it.
ad hoc to paper Polyak-Łojasiewicz (PL) condition holds for the Dirichlet-averaged amortized objective: ∥∇L(φ)∥² ≥ 2μ_L(L(φ)−L⋆) for all φ∈Φ.
Assumed without verification to prove linear convergence in Theorem 3.1; not implied by (A1)-(A5).
domain assumption The network parameter class Φ is bounded (∥W_v∥_op≤B_v) and the final activation is bounded, so the generator output and Jacobians are uniformly bounded.
Standard in neural-network theory; can be enforced by normalization or clipping, but the paper assumes the iterates stay in Φ.
domain assumption The block partition π is a uniformly random balanced partition, independent of the data and the Dirichlet weights.
Part of the mechanism design; used in the privacy analysis to marginalize over partitions and in the posterior Wasserstein bound.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Private Generative Bootstrap via Blocking." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YTT6UQNI

@misc{pith2026260802480,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Private Generative Bootstrap via Blocking},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YTT6UQNI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02480}
}

read the original abstract

With AI systems gaining more access to individuals' information, it is important to protect privacy when reporting statistical answers. Equally important is to privatize the reporting of uncertainty in such answers. To this end, we adopt a Bayesian likelihood-free framework and make simulation from the posterior private. In particular, we propose a new private instantiation of the Bayesian bootstrap using a blocking strategy. Rather than assigning idiosyncratic random weights to each individual, we randomly group individuals and assign a single weight to each group. By concealing individuals' contributions within a group, we fortify differential privacy gates. We harness amortized inference that decouples private learning from posterior sampling. A push-forward map from observation weights to posterior samples is learned privately by adding calibrated noise during training. Subsequent posterior draws require no additional privacy and computation budget. We call the resulting method the Private Generative Bayesian Bootstrap (PGBB). We establish a differential privacy guarantee, analyze convergence to the non-private blocked-bootstrap target, and quantify the discrepancy between the ordinary and blocked Bayesian-bootstrap posteriors. In addition, we derive data-free tuning of the block Dirichlet concentration parameter that restores posterior dispersion asymptotically. We also show a single fit of PGBB can support a family of loss-based decision rules simultaneously without additional privacy cost. In simulations and in applications to U.S. Census returns to schooling and U.S. natality birthweight quantiles, PGBB gives competitive private uncertainty quantification and improves over private Bayesian alternatives that require a specified data-generating model in common settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02480 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** (ε, δ⋆(ε))-DP curve in Proposition 2.2, varying (a) the sample size n, (b) the block count S, (c) the noise scale σ, and (d) the Beta-moment truncation order J. The four panels illustrate the anticipated monotone dependence on the privacy-related parameters. 2.5 Joint Learning across Decision Rules This section introduces a distinctive feature of the amortized sampler. A single generator can privatize the posterior … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** examines Theorem 4.1 and Proposition 4.1 on the linear regression example. We draw Xi ∼ N (0, I) and yi = X⊤ i θ0 + εi , εi ∼ N (0, 1), where θ0,j = (−1)j/(1 + j) for j = 0, . . . , p − 1. The ridge-type solution is θ ⋆ (w) := (X⊤diag(w)X + λI) −1X⊤diag(w)y. We set p = 5 and λ = 10−4 . The left plot illustrates the 1-Wasserstein distance averaged over the p coefficients when either S or nS is fixed. The derived rate… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Linear regression under heavy-tailed errors. In panel (a), each point averages the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Exponential-family experiment. Points are means over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Released DP quantile-regression coefficients across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Posterior variability versus the non-private standard error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[1]

Foundations and Trends

The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy , author=. Foundations and Trends. 2014 , publisher=

2014
[2]

ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security , year=

Deep learning with differential privacy , author=. ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security , year=
[3]

The Annals of Statistics , volume=

Differentially private inference via noisy optimization , author=. The Annals of Statistics , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

2023
[4]

Differentially private

Bernstein, Garrett and Sheldon, Daniel R , journal=. Differentially private
[5]

and Oliviero Durmus, Alain , journal =

Bertazzi, Andrea and Johnston, Tim and Roberts, Gareth O. and Oliviero Durmus, Alain , journal =. Differential Privacy Guarantees of
[6]

Differential privacy for

Dimitrakakis, Christos and Nelson, Blaine and Zhang, Zuhe and Mitrokotsa, Aikaterini and Rubinstein, Benjamin IP , journal=. Differential privacy for
[7]

Privacy for free: Posterior sampling and stochastic gradient

Wang, Yu-Xiang and Fienberg, Stephen and Smola, Alex , journal=. Privacy for free: Posterior sampling and stochastic gradient
[8]

Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality , author=

Exact Inference with Approximate Computation for Differentially Private Data via Perturbations , volume=. Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality , author=. 2022 , month=

2022

Show all 52 references

[9]

Journal of the American Statistical Association , volume =

Jordan Awan and Zhanyu Wang , title =. Journal of the American Statistical Association , volume =. 2025 , publisher =

2025
[10]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19231 , year=

O'Hagan, Sean and Ro. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19231 , year=

arXiv
[11]

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , volume=

A general framework for updating belief distributions , author=. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

2016
[12]

Differentially private

Heikkil. Differentially private. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , year=
[13]

Zhang, Wanrong and Zhang, Ruqi , journal=
[14]

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , volume=

Gaussian differential privacy , author=. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

2022
[15]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , year=

Differentially private statistical inference through -divergence one posterior sampling , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , year=
[16]

Miyato, Takeru and Kataoka, Toshiki and Koyama, Masanori and Yoshida, Yuichi , journal =
[17]

Data augmentation

Ju, Nianqiao and Awan, Jordan and Gong, Ruobin and Rao, Vinayak , journal=. Data augmentation
[18]

Mironov, Ilya , journal=. R. 2017 , organization=

2017
[19]

International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , year=

Parametric bootstrap for differentially private confidence intervals , author=. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , year=
[20]

Journal of Machine Learning Research , volume=

Differentially Private Bootstrap: New Privacy Analysis and Inference Strategies , author=. Journal of Machine Learning Research , volume=
[21]

Lyddon, Simon P and Holmes, Chris C and Walker, Stephen G , journal=. General. 2019 , publisher=

2019
[22]

Deep bootstrap for

Nie, Lizhen and Ro. Deep bootstrap for. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

2023
[23]

M. Risk of. Econometrica , volume=. 2013 , publisher=

2013
[24]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , year=

Neural bootstrapper , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , year=
[25]

Theory of Cryptography Conference , pages=

Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis , author=. Theory of Cryptography Conference , pages=. 2006a , organization=
[26]

International Conference on Machine Learning , year=

Scalable nonparametric sampling from multimodal posteriors with the posterior bootstrap , author=. International Conference on Machine Learning , year=
[27]

2014 , volume=

van Erven, Tim and Harremos, Peter , journal=. 2014 , volume=

2014
[28]

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , volume=

High-dimensional quantile regression: Convolution smoothing and concave regularization , author=. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

2022
[29]

Breakthroughs in Statistics: Methodology and Distribution , pages=

Robust estimation of a location parameter , author=. Breakthroughs in Statistics: Methodology and Distribution , pages=. 1992 , publisher=

1992
[30]

Rubin, Donald B , journal=. The. 1981 , volume=

1981
[31]

On connecting stochastic gradient

Li, Bai and Chen, Changyou and Liu, Hao and Carin, Lawrence , journal=. On connecting stochastic gradient
[32]

IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory , volume=

Three variants of differential privacy: Lossless conversion and applications , author=. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

2021
[33]

Foundations of Computational Mathematics , volume=

User-friendly tail bounds for sums of random matrices , author=. Foundations of Computational Mathematics , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

2012
[34]

2018 , publisher=

High-dimensional probability: An introduction with applications in data science , author=. 2018 , publisher=

2018
[35]

Differentially private stochastic gradient descent with fixed-size minibatches: Tighter

Birrell, Jeremiah and Ebrahimi, Reza and Behnia, Rouzbeh and Pacheco, Jason , journal=. Differentially private stochastic gradient descent with fixed-size minibatches: Tighter
[36]

Linear convergence of gradient and proximal-gradient methods under the

Karimi, Hamed and Nutini, Julie and Schmidt, Mark , journal=. Linear convergence of gradient and proximal-gradient methods under the. 2016 , organization=

2016
[37]

Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis , volume=

Loss landscapes and optimization in over-parameterized non-linear systems and neural networks , author=. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

2022
[38]

Journal of the American Statistical Association , volume=

Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables , author=. Journal of the American Statistical Association , volume=. 1963 , publisher=

1963
[39]

2010 , publisher=

Normal approximation by Stein’s method , author=. 2010 , publisher=

2010
[40]

Quantile regression under misspecification, with an application to the

Angrist, Joshua and Chernozhukov, Victor and Fern. Quantile regression under misspecification, with an application to the. Econometrica , volume=. 2006 , publisher=

2006
[41]

Empirical Economics , volume=

The effects of demographics and maternal behavior on the distribution of birth outcomes , author=. Empirical Economics , volume=. 2001 , publisher=

2001
[42]

Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society , volume=

Regression quantiles , author=. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society , volume=. 1978 , publisher=

1978
[43]

Generative multi-purpose sampler for weighted

Shin, Minsuk and Wang, Shijie and Liu, Jun S , journal=. Generative multi-purpose sampler for weighted. 2024 , publisher=

2024
[44]

Conference on Learning Theory , year=

Size-independent sample complexity of neural networks , author=. Conference on Learning Theory , year=
[45]

The Annals of Statistics , pages=

The jackknife and the bootstrap for general stationary observations , author=. The Annals of Statistics , pages=. 1989 , publisher=

1989
[46]

ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , year=

Smooth sensitivity and sampling in private data analysis , author=. ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , year=
[47]

Semi-supervised Knowledge Transfer for Deep Learning from Private Training Data , journal =

Nicolas Papernot and Mart. Semi-supervised Knowledge Transfer for Deep Learning from Private Training Data , journal =
[48]

Bootstrap consistency for general semiparametric

Cheng, Guang and Huang, Jianhua Z , journal=. Bootstrap consistency for general semiparametric
[49]

The Annals of Probability , pages=

Exchangeably weighted bootstraps of the general empirical process , author=. The Annals of Probability , pages=. 1993 , volume=

1993
[50]

Universal function approximation by deep neural nets with bounded width and

Hanin, Boris , journal=. Universal function approximation by deep neural nets with bounded width and. 2019 , publisher=

2019
[51]

Advances in Cryptology -- EUROCRYPT 2006 , pages =

Our Data, Ourselves: Privacy Via Distributed Noise Generation , author =. Advances in Cryptology -- EUROCRYPT 2006 , pages =. 2006b , publisher =

2006
[52]

International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

Scalable extraction of training data from aligned, production language models , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Foundations and Trends

The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy , author=. Foundations and Trends. 2014 , publisher=

2014

[2] [2]

ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security , year=

Deep learning with differential privacy , author=. ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security , year=

[3] [3]

The Annals of Statistics , volume=

Differentially private inference via noisy optimization , author=. The Annals of Statistics , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

2023

[4] [4]

Differentially private

Bernstein, Garrett and Sheldon, Daniel R , journal=. Differentially private

[5] [5]

and Oliviero Durmus, Alain , journal =

Bertazzi, Andrea and Johnston, Tim and Roberts, Gareth O. and Oliviero Durmus, Alain , journal =. Differential Privacy Guarantees of

[6] [6]

Differential privacy for

Dimitrakakis, Christos and Nelson, Blaine and Zhang, Zuhe and Mitrokotsa, Aikaterini and Rubinstein, Benjamin IP , journal=. Differential privacy for

[7] [7]

Privacy for free: Posterior sampling and stochastic gradient

Wang, Yu-Xiang and Fienberg, Stephen and Smola, Alex , journal=. Privacy for free: Posterior sampling and stochastic gradient

[8] [8]

Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality , author=

Exact Inference with Approximate Computation for Differentially Private Data via Perturbations , volume=. Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality , author=. 2022 , month=

2022