Privacy-Utility Tradeoffs in Quantum Information Processing

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.10510v1
• Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2026 04:21:45 GMT
• Title: Privacy-Utility Tradeoffs in Quantum Information Processing
• Authors: Theshani Nuradha, Sujeet Bhalerao, Felix Leditzky,
• Abstract summary: We study optimal tradeoffs for both generic and application-specific utility metrics when privacy is quantified by $(varepsilon,)$-quantum local differential privacy.<n>We derive a lower bound on the number of samples required to achieve a fixed accuracy guarantee with high probability.<n>We conclude by initiating the study of private classical shadows, which promise useful applications for private learning tasks.
• Score: 13.088625380700933
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: When sensitive information is encoded in data, it is important to ensure the privacy of information when attempting to learn useful information from the data. There is a natural tradeoff whereby increasing privacy requirements may decrease the utility of a learning protocol. In the quantum setting of differential privacy, such tradeoffs between privacy and utility have so far remained largely unexplored. In this work, we study optimal privacy-utility tradeoffs for both generic and application-specific utility metrics when privacy is quantified by $(\varepsilon,δ)$-quantum local differential privacy. In the generic setting, we focus on optimizing fidelity and trace distance between the original state and the privatized state. We show that the depolarizing mechanism achieves the optimal utility for given privacy requirements. We then study the specific application of learning the expectation of an observable with respect to an input state when only given access to privatized states. We derive a lower bound on the number of samples of privatized data required to achieve a fixed accuracy guarantee with high probability. To prove this result, we employ existing lower bounds on private quantum hypothesis testing, thus showcasing the first operational use of them. We also devise private mechanisms that achieve optimal sample complexity with respect to the privacy parameters and accuracy parameters, demonstrating that utility can be significantly improved for specific tasks in contrast to the generic setting. In addition, we show that the number of samples required to privately learn observable expectation values scales as $Θ((\varepsilon β)^{-2})$, where $\varepsilon \in (0,1)$ is the privacy parameter and $β$ is the accuracy tolerance. We conclude by initiating the study of private classical shadows, which promise useful applications for private learning tasks.

Related papers

• High-Dimensional Asymptotics of Differentially Private PCA [4.168157981135696]
  In differential privacy, statistics of a sensitive dataset are privatized by introducing random noise.<n>It remains unclear if such high noise levels are truly necessary or a limitation of the proof techniques.<n>This paper explores whether we can obtain sharp privacy characterizations that identify the smallest noise level required to achieve a target privacy level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-10T16:17:16Z)
• Private Hyperparameter Tuning with Ex-Post Guarantee [98.43027866582979]
  " Utility-first" privacy mechanisms prioritize a desired level of utility and then determine the corresponding privacy cost.<n>We extend the work of Wu et al. [ 2019] and Liu and Talwar [ 2019] to support any sequence of private estimators.<n>We demonstrate that hyper parameter tuning for these estimators, including the selection of an optimal privacy budget, can be performed without additional privacy cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-21T02:42:23Z)
• A Randomized Approach for Tight Privacy Accounting [63.67296945525791]
  We propose a new differential privacy paradigm called estimate-verify-release (EVR) EVR paradigm first estimates the privacy parameter of a mechanism, then verifies whether it meets this guarantee, and finally releases the query output. Our empirical evaluation shows the newly proposed EVR paradigm improves the utility-privacy tradeoff for privacy-preserving machine learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-17T00:38:01Z)
• Breaking the Communication-Privacy-Accuracy Tradeoff with $f$-Differential Privacy [51.11280118806893]
  We consider a federated data analytics problem in which a server coordinates the collaborative data analysis of multiple users with privacy concerns and limited communication capability. We study the local differential privacy guarantees of discrete-valued mechanisms with finite output space through the lens of $f$-differential privacy (DP) More specifically, we advance the existing literature by deriving tight $f$-DP guarantees for a variety of discrete-valued mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-19T16:58:53Z)
• On the Statistical Complexity of Estimation and Testing under Privacy Constraints [17.04261371990489]
  We show how to characterize the power of a statistical test under differential privacy in a plug-and-play fashion. We show that maintaining privacy results in a noticeable reduction in performance only when the level of privacy protection is very high. Finally, we demonstrate that the DP-SGLD algorithm, a private convex solver, can be employed for maximum likelihood estimation with a high degree of confidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-05T12:55:53Z)
• Smooth Anonymity for Sparse Graphs [69.1048938123063]
  differential privacy has emerged as the gold standard of privacy, however, when it comes to sharing sparse datasets. In this work, we consider a variation of $k$-anonymity, which we call smooth-$k$-anonymity, and design simple large-scale algorithms that efficiently provide smooth-$k$-anonymity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-13T17:09:25Z)
• Individual Privacy Accounting for Differentially Private Stochastic Gradient Descent [69.14164921515949]
  We characterize privacy guarantees for individual examples when releasing models trained by DP-SGD. We find that most examples enjoy stronger privacy guarantees than the worst-case bound. This implies groups that are underserved in terms of model utility simultaneously experience weaker privacy guarantees.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-06T13:49:37Z)
• Production of Categorical Data Verifying Differential Privacy: Conception and Applications to Machine Learning [0.0]
  Differential privacy is a formal definition that allows quantifying the privacy-utility trade-off. With the local DP (LDP) model, users can sanitize their data locally before transmitting it to the server. In all cases, we concluded that differentially private ML models achieve nearly the same utility metrics as non-private ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-02T12:50:14Z)
• Quantifying identifiability to choose and audit $\epsilon$ in differentially private deep learning [15.294433619347082]
  To use differential privacy in machine learning, data scientists must choose privacy parameters $(epsilon,delta)$. We transform $(epsilon,delta)$ to a bound on the Bayesian posterior belief of the adversary assumed by differential privacy concerning the presence of any record in the training dataset. We formulate an implementation of this differential privacy adversary that allows data scientists to audit model training and compute empirical identifiability scores and empirical $(epsilon,delta)$.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-04T09:35:58Z)
• Do Not Let Privacy Overbill Utility: Gradient Embedding Perturbation for Private Learning [74.73901662374921]
  A differentially private model degrades the utility drastically when the model comprises a large number of trainable parameters. We propose an algorithm emphGradient Embedding Perturbation (GEP) towards training differentially private deep models with decent accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-25T04:29:58Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.