How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Laplace mechanism privacy
Statement
Assume Countable Choice. For every finite-dimensional query with and finite global sensitivity, and every , the Laplace mechanism is -differentially private under add/remove adjacency.
Statement references
Facts & Assumptions
Given: , a finite-dimensional query , finite sensitivity , , neighboring databases , and a Borel output event .
Countable Choice is inherited through the real Laplace probability law; no stronger choice principle is used.
Sensitivity is the maximum of , where .
Laplace mechanism uses scale when , and releases deterministically when sensitivity is zero.
Product density is for .
Translation change of variables preserves Lebesgue integrals because its Jacobian has absolute value one.
Differential privacy is the event inequality for every ordered neighboring pair and every output event.
The exponential addition formula, strict monotonicity, and positivity and the reciprocal identity give , make increasing, and give for real .
Proof
Suppose and put . By [F2]–[F4], the output law at database has Lebesgue density , since [F4] translates the product noise density from [F3] by .
For every , coordinatewise triangle inequalities give . The densities in [F3] are positive, and [F6] gives for real . Therefore , where the inequality uses monotonicity from [F6]. Interchanging proves the reverse pointwise ratio bound; integrating both bounds over yields the two event inequalities.
If , [F1] forces for every neighboring pair, hence . The deterministic output laws are identical, so both event inequalities hold with (and ). Combining this case with step 2.1 and applying [F5] proves the result.
Depends on
- Laplace mechanism
- Global L1 sensitivity
- Differential privacy, databases, and add/remove adjacency
- Finite independent Laplace noise has product density
- The exponential addition formula $\exp(x+y)=\exp(x)\exp(y)$
- The exponential function is strictly increasing
- The exponential is positive and satisfies $\exp(-x)=1/\exp(x)$
- The Axiom of Countable Choice ($\mathrm{AC}_\omega$)
- A C^1 diffeomorphism satisfies the change-of-variables formula for nonnegative Lebesgue measurable functions
Used by
- Add/remove noisy count Example
- Thresholding a private noisy count Example
Dependency tree · two levels
49 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Cynthia Dwork and Aaron Roth, The Algorithmic Foundations of Differential Privacy (standard reference, not scraped)
- Salil Vadhan, The Complexity of Differential Privacy, 2017 manuscript (standard reference, not scraped)