Almost Tight Bounds for Differentially Private Densest Subgraph

TL;DR

This paper presents new differentially private algorithms for the densest subgraph problem that achieve no multiplicative loss, only additive, improving privacy-preserving graph analysis.

Contribution

It introduces algorithms that match or improve previous additive bounds without multiplicative loss in both classic and local edge differential privacy models.

Findings

Pure additive loss of O(log n / epsilon) in centralized setting

Extension to node-weighted and directed graphs

Separation between structural and numeric density computation

Abstract

We study the Densest Subgraph (DSG) problem under the additional constraint of differential privacy. DSG is a fundamental theoretical question which plays a central role in graph analytics, and so privacy is a natural requirement. All known private algorithms for Densest Subgraph lose constant multiplicative factors, despite the existence of non-private exact algorithms. We show that, perhaps surprisingly, this loss is not necessary: in both the classic differential privacy model and the LEDP model (local edge differential privacy, introduced recently by Dhulipala et al. [FOCS 2022]), we give $(\epsilon, \delta)$-differentially private algorithms with no multiplicative loss whatsoever. In other words, the loss is \emph{purely additive}. Moreover, our additive losses match or improve the best-known previous additive loss (in any version of differential privacy) when $1/\delta$ is polynomial in $n$, and are almost tight: in the centralized setting, our additive loss is $O(\log n /\epsilon)$ while there is a known lower bound of $\Omega(\sqrt{\log n / \epsilon})$. We also give a number of extensions. First, we show how to extend our techniques to both the node-weighted and the directed versions of the problem. Second, we give a separate algorithm with pure differential privacy (as opposed to approximate DP) but with worse approximation bounds. And third, we give a new algorithm for privately computing the optimal density which implies a separation between the structural problem of privately computing the densest subgraph and the numeric problem of privately computing the density of the densest subgraph.