Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 21, 2022. It is now read-only.

Feature: generic way for callers to request exact answers #330

Open
raprasad opened this issue Dec 2, 2020 · 2 comments
Open

Feature: generic way for callers to request exact answers #330

raprasad opened this issue Dec 2, 2020 · 2 comments

Comments

@raprasad
Copy link
Member

raprasad commented Dec 2, 2020

From @joshua-oss :

Feature: Generic way for callers to request exact answers.

This is useful in the evaluator, allowing for testing of accuracy bounds. I’m not aware of any other scenarios where it would be useful, beyond tinkering and debugging, and it would obviously be a potential source of abuse. We currently have an internal API on the SQL layer that allows this, but there was a proposal to treat Infinite epsilon as being a request for exact values. Would need some thought about how to expose safely.

@raprasad
Copy link
Member Author

raprasad commented Dec 2, 2020

from @Shoeboxam:
There is an api for this already- but to use it, you take a performance hit.
wn.Analysis(filter_level='all'), keeps all intermediate values in the graph, even non-privatized ones.

You can run, for example, sn.mean(data).value to get the exact statistic. Similar functions are available for all statistics. Another downside here is that it is no longer the same graph- it's a similar graph, but without the mechanism.

@Shoeboxam
Copy link
Member

Shoeboxam commented Dec 3, 2020

Two potential routes here.

Route 1: Do special-casing in mechanisms. If privacy_definition.strict_parameter_checks are off, infinite epsilon disables noise addition.

Route 2: Introduce an intermediate filter level with one of these behaviors:

  1. a filter level that retains graph sinks
  2. a filter level that retains aggregated data
  3. a filter level that retains certain components that the user flags

Currently, private data are purged from the graph as the computation runs, unless the filter-level is set to retain all.

@raprasad raprasad added this to Needs Discussion in OpenDP Development Feb 18, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
No open projects
OpenDP Development
Needs Discussion
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants