Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/2723372.2737785acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Private Release of Graph Statistics using Ladder Functions

Published: 27 May 2015 Publication History

Abstract

Protecting the privacy of individuals in graph structured data while making accurate versions of the data available is one of the most challenging problems in data privacy. Most efforts to date to perform this data release end up mired in complexity, overwhelm the signal with noise, and are not effective for use in practice. In this paper, we introduce a new method which guarantees differential privacy. It specifies a probability distribution over possible outputs that is carefully defined to maximize the utility for the given input, while still providing the required privacy level. The distribution is designed to form a 'ladder', so that each output achieves the highest 'rung' (maximum probability) compared to less preferable outputs. We show how our ladder framework can be applied to problems of counting the number of occurrences of subgraphs, a vital objective in graph analysis, and give algorithms whose cost is comparable to that of computing the count exactly. Our experimental study confirms that our method outperforms existing methods for counting triangles and stars in terms of accuracy, and provides solutions for some problems for which no effective method was previously known. The results of our algorithms can be used to estimate the parameters of suitable graph models, allowing synthetic graphs to be sampled.

References

[1]
F. Ahmed, R. Jin, and A. X. Liu. A random matrix approach to differential privacy and structure preserved social network graph publishing. CoRR, abs/1307.0475, 2013.
[2]
L. Backstrom, C. Dwork, and J. M. Kleinberg. Wherefore art thou r3579x?: anonymized social networks, hidden patterns, and structural steganography. In WWW, pages 181--190, 2007.
[3]
J. Blocki, A. Blum, A. Datta, and O. Sheffet. Differentially private data analysis of social networks via restricted sensitivity. In Proceedings of the 4th conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science, pages 87--96. ACM, 2013.
[4]
H. Bunke. On a relation between graph edit distance and maximum common subgraph. Pattern Recogn. Lett., 18(9):689--694, Aug. 1997.
[5]
S. Chen and S. Zhou. Recursive mechanism: Towards node differential privacy and unrestricted joins. In SIGMOD, pages 653--664, 2013.
[6]
G. Cormode, D. Srivastava, T. Yu, and Q. Zhang. Anonymizing bipartite graph data using safe groupings. VLDB J., pages 115--139, 2010.
[7]
C. Dwork. Differential privacy. In ICALP, pages 1--12, 2006.
[8]
C. Dwork. Differential privacy: A survey of results. In TAMC, pages 1--19, 2008.
[9]
C. Dwork. The differential privacy frontier (extended abstract). In TCC, pages 496--502, 2009.
[10]
C. Dwork, K. Kenthapadi, F. McSherry, I. Mironov, and M. Naor. Our data, ourselves: Privacy via distributed noise generation. In Advances in Cryptology-EUROCRYPT 2006, pages 486--503. Springer, 2006.
[11]
C. Dwork, F. McSherry, K. Nissim, and A. Smith. Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis. In TCC, pages 265--284, 2006.
[12]
C. Dwork and A. Smith. Differential privacy for statistics: What we know and what we want to learn. Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality, 1(2):2, 2010.
[13]
D. F. Gleich and A. B. Owen. Moment-based estimation of stochastic kronecker graph parameters. Internet Mathematics, 8(3):232--256, 2012.
[14]
M. Hardt and A. Roth. Beyond worst-case analysis in private singular vector computation. In STOC, 2013.
[15]
M. Hay, C. Li, G. Miklau, and D. Jensen. Accurate estimation of the degree distribution of private networks. In ICDM, pages 169--178, 2009.
[16]
M. Hay, G. Miklau, D. Jensen, D. F. Towsley, and C. Li. Resisting structural re-identification in anonymized social networks. VLDB J., pages 797--823, 2010.
[17]
V. Karwa, S. Raskhodnikova, A. Smith, and G. Yaroslavtsev. Private analysis of graph structure. TODS, 39(3):22, 2014.
[18]
V. Karwa and A. B. Slavković. Differentially private graphical degree sequences and synthetic graphs. In Privacy in Statistical Databases, pages 273--285. Springer, 2012.
[19]
S. P. Kasiviswanathan, K. Nissim, S. Raskhodnikova, and A. Smith. Analyzing graphs with node differential privacy. In Theory of Cryptography, pages 457--476. Springer, 2013.
[20]
J. Leskovec, D. Chakrabarti, J. Kleinberg, C. Faloutsos, and Z. Ghahramani. Kronecker graphs: An approach to modeling networks. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11:985--1042, 2010.
[21]
J. Leskovec and A. Krevl. SNAP Datasets: Stanford large network dataset collection. http://snap.stanford.edu/data, June 2014.
[22]
B.-R. Lin and D. Kifer. Information preservation in statistical privacy and bayesian estimation of unattributed histograms. In SIGMOD, pages 677--688, 2013.
[23]
K. Liu and E. Terzi. Towards identity anonymization on graphs. In SIGMOD, pages 93--106, 2008.
[24]
W. Lu and G. Miklau. Exponential random graph estimation under differential privacy. In KDD, pages 921--930, 2014.
[25]
F. McSherry and K. Talwar. Mechanism design via differential privacy. In FOCS, pages 94--103, 2007.
[26]
D. Mir and R. N. Wright. A differentially private estimator for the stochastic kronecker graph model. In Proceedings of the 2012 Joint EDBT/ICDT Workshops, pages 167--176. ACM, 2012.
[27]
A. Narayanan and V. Shmatikov. Robust de-anonymization of large sparse datasets. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 111--125, 2008.
[28]
A. Narayanan and V. Shmatikov. De-anonymizing social networks. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 173--187, 2009.
[29]
K. Nissim, S. Raskhodnikova, and A. Smith. Smooth sensitivity and sampling in private data analysis. In STOC, pages 75--84, 2007.
[30]
M. M. Pai and A. Roth. Privacy and mechanism design. ACM SIGecom Exchanges, 12(1):8--29, 2013.
[31]
D. Proserpio, S. Goldberg, and F. McSherry. Calibrating data to sensitivity in private data analysis. PVLDB, 7(8), 2014.
[32]
V. Rastogi, M. Hay, G. Miklau, and D. Suciu. Relationship privacy: output perturbation for queries with joins. In PODS, pages 107--116, 2009.
[33]
A. Sala, X. Zhao, C. Wilson, H. Zheng, and B. Y. Zhao. Sharing graphs using differentially private graph models. In IMC, pages 81--98. ACM, 2011.
[34]
T. Tassa and D. Cohen. Anonymization of centralized and distributed social networks by sequential clustering. TKDE, 25(2), 2013.
[35]
Y. Wang and X. Wu. Preserving differential privacy in degree-correlation based graph generation. Trans. Data Privacy, 6(2):127--145, Aug. 2013.
[36]
Y. Wang, X. Wu, and L. Wu. Differential privacy preserving spectral graph analysis. In Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 329--340. 2013.
[37]
B. Zhou and J. Pei. Preserving privacy in social networks against neighborhood attacks. In ICDE, pages 506--515, 2008.
[38]
L. Zou, L. Chen, and M. T. Özsu. K-automorphism: A general framework for privacy preserving network publication. In PVLDB, pages 946--957, 2009.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Common Neighborhood Estimation over Bipartite Graphs under Local Differential PrivacyProceedings of the ACM on Management of Data10.1145/36988032:6(1-26)Online publication date: 20-Dec-2024
  • (2024)Instance-optimal Truncation for Differentially Private Query Evaluation with Foreign KeysACM Transactions on Database Systems10.1145/369783149:4(1-40)Online publication date: 26-Sep-2024
  • (2024)Continual Observation of Joins under Differential PrivacyProceedings of the ACM on Management of Data10.1145/36549312:3(1-27)Online publication date: 30-May-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
SIGMOD '15: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data
May 2015
2110 pages
ISBN:9781450327589
DOI:10.1145/2723372
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 27 May 2015

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. differential privacy
  2. local sensitivity
  3. subgraph counting

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

  • Microsoft Research Asia
  • the Ministry of Education (Singapore)
  • AT&T
  • European Commission
  • Nanyang Technological University

Conference

SIGMOD/PODS'15
Sponsor:
SIGMOD/PODS'15: International Conference on Management of Data
May 31 - June 4, 2015
Victoria, Melbourne, Australia

Acceptance Rates

SIGMOD '15 Paper Acceptance Rate 106 of 415 submissions, 26%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 785 of 4,003 submissions, 20%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)65
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7
Reflects downloads up to 25 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Common Neighborhood Estimation over Bipartite Graphs under Local Differential PrivacyProceedings of the ACM on Management of Data10.1145/36988032:6(1-26)Online publication date: 20-Dec-2024
  • (2024)Instance-optimal Truncation for Differentially Private Query Evaluation with Foreign KeysACM Transactions on Database Systems10.1145/369783149:4(1-40)Online publication date: 26-Sep-2024
  • (2024)Continual Observation of Joins under Differential PrivacyProceedings of the ACM on Management of Data10.1145/36549312:3(1-27)Online publication date: 30-May-2024
  • (2024)Privacy Amplification by Sampling under User-level Differential PrivacyProceedings of the ACM on Management of Data10.1145/36392892:1(1-26)Online publication date: 26-Mar-2024
  • (2024)DPAR: Decoupled Graph Neural Networks with Node-Level Differential PrivacyProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 202410.1145/3589334.3645531(1170-1181)Online publication date: 13-May-2024
  • (2024)FRESH: Towards Efficient Graph Queries in an Outsourced Graph2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE)10.1109/ICDE60146.2024.00346(4545-4557)Online publication date: 13-May-2024
  • (2024)GShop: Towards Flexible Pricing for Graph Statistics2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE)10.1109/ICDE60146.2024.00205(2612-2624)Online publication date: 13-May-2024
  • (2024)Butterfly Counting over Bipartite Graphs with Local Differential Privacy2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE)10.1109/ICDE60146.2024.00186(2351-2364)Online publication date: 13-May-2024
  • (2023)Faster approximate subgraph counts with privacyProceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems10.5555/3666122.3669207(70402-70432)Online publication date: 10-Dec-2023
  • (2023)Description and Analysis of Data Security Based on Differential Privacy in Enterprise Power SystemsMathematics10.3390/math1123482911:23(4829)Online publication date: 30-Nov-2023
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media