Wishart Mechanism for Differentially Private Principal Components Analysis
Wuxuan Jiang, Cong Xie and Zhihua Zhang

arXiv:1511.05680v2 [cs.CR] 19 Nov 2015

Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
jiangwuxuan@gmail.com, {xcgoner, zhihua}@sjtu.edu.cn

Abstract
We propose a new input perturbation mechanism
for publishing a covariance matrix to achieve (, 0)differential privacy. Our mechanism uses a Wishart distribution to generate matrix noise. In particular, we
apply this mechanism to principal component analysis (PCA). Our mechanism is able to keep the positive semi-definiteness of the published covariance matrix. Thus, our approach gives rise to a general publishing framework for input perturbation of a symmetric positive semidefinite matrix. Moreover, compared
with the classic Laplace mechanism, our method has
better utility guarantee. To the best of our knowledge,
the Wishart mechanism is the best input perturbation
approach for (, 0)-differentially private PCA. We also
compare our work with previous exponential mechanism algorithms in the literature and provide near optimal bound while having more flexibility and less computational intractability.

1

Introduction

Plenty of machine learning tasks deal with sensitive information such as financial and medical data. A common
concern regarding data security arises on account of the
rapid development of data mining techniques. Several data
privacy definitions are proposed in the literature. Among
them differential privacy (DP) has been widely used (Dwork
et al. 2006). Differential privacy controls the fundamental
quantity of information that can be revealed with changing one individual. Beyond a concept in database security,
differential privacy has been used by many researchers to
develop privacy-preserving learning algorithms (Chaudhuri
and Monteleoni 2009; Chaudhuri, Monteleoni, and Sarwate
2011; Bojarski et al. 2014). Indeed, this class of algorithms
is applied to a large number of machine learning models including logistic regression (Chaudhuri and Monteleoni
2009), support vector machine (Chaudhuri, Monteleoni, and
Sarwate 2011), random decision tree (Bojarski et al. 2014),
etc. Accordingly, these methods can protect the raw data
even though the output and algorithm itself are published.
Differential privacy (DP) aims to hide the individual information while keeping basic statistics of the whole dataset.
Copyright c 2016, Association for the Advancement of Artificial
Intelligence (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved.

A simple idea to achieve this purpose is to add some special noise to the original model. After that, the attacker, who
has two outputs generated by slightly different inputs, cannot distinguish whether the output change comes from the
artificial noise or input difference. However, the noise might
influence the quality of regular performance of the model.
Thus, we should carefully trade off between privacy and utility.
No matter what the procedure is, a query, a learning algorithm, a game strategy or something else, we are able to
define differential privacy if this procedure takes a dataset as
input and returns the corresponding output. In this paper, we
study the problem of designing differential private principal
component analysis (PCA). PCA reduces the data dimension while keeping the optimal variance. More specifically,
it finds a projection matrix by computing a low rank approximation to the sample covariance matrix of the given data
points.
Privacy-preserving PCA is a well-studied problem in the
literature (Dwork et al. 2014; Hardt and Roth 2012; 2013;
Hardt and Price 2014; Blum et al. 2005; Chaudhuri, Sarwate, and Sinha 2012; Kapralov and Talwar 2013). It outputs a noisy projection matrix for dimension reduction while
preserving the privacy of any single data point. The extant
privacy-preserving PCA algorithms have been devised based
on two major features: the notion of differential privacy
and the stage of randomization. Accordingly, the privacypreserving PCA algorithms can be divided into distinct categories.
The notion of differential privacy has two types: (, 0)-DP
(also called pure DP) and (, δ)-DP (also called approximate
DP). (, δ)-DP is a weaker version of (, 0)-DP as the former
allows the privacy guarantee to be broken with tiny probability (more precisely, δ). In the seminal work on privacypreserving PCA (Dwork et al. 2014; Hardt and Roth 2012;
2013; Hardt and Price 2014; Blum et al. 2005), the authors used the notion of (, δ)-DP. In contrast, there is
only a few work (Chaudhuri, Sarwate, and Sinha 2012;
Kapralov and Talwar 2013), which is based on (, 0)-DP.
In terms of the stage of randomization, there are two
mainstream classes of approaches. The first is randomly
computing the eigenspace (Hardt and Roth 2013; Hardt and
Price 2014; Chaudhuri, Sarwate, and Sinha 2012; Kapralov
and Talwar 2013). The noise is added in the computing pro-

cedure. An alternative way is directly adding noise to the covariance matrix. Then one runs the non-private eigenspace
computing algorithm to produce the output. This class of
approaches is called input perturbation (Blum et al. 2005;
Dwork et al. 2014). The input perturbation algorithms publish a noisy sample covariance matrix before computing the
eigenspace. Thus, any further operation on the noisy covariance matrix does not violate privacy guarantee. So far as
the flexibility is concerned, the input perturbation has better performance because it is not limited only to computing
eigenspace. Besides, the input perturbation approach is efficient because it merely takes extra efforts on generating
the noise. In view of these advantages, our mechanism for
privacy-preserving PCA is also based on input perturbation.

Related Work
Blum et al. (2005) proposed an early input perturbation
framework (named SULQ), and the parameters of noise are
refined by Dwork et al. (2006). Dwork et al. (2014) proved
the state-of-the-art utility bounds for (, δ)-DP. Hardt and
Roth (2012) provided a better bound under the coherence assumption. In (Hardt and Roth 2013; Hardt and Price 2014),
the authors used a noisy power method to produce the principal eigenvector iteratively with removing the previous generated ones. Hardt and Price (2014) provided a special case
for (, 0)-DP as well.
Chaudhuri, Sarwate, and Sinha (2012) proposed the
first useful privacy-preserving PCA algorithm for (, 0)-DP
based on an exponential mechanism (McSherry and Talwar
2007). Kapralov and Talwar (2013) argued that the algorithm in (Chaudhuri, Sarwate, and Sinha 2012) lacks convergence time guarantee and used heuristic tests to check
convergence of the chain, which may affect the privacy guarantee. They also devised a mixed algorithm for low rank matrix approximation. However, their algorithm is quite complicated to implement and takes O(d6 /) running time. Here
d is the dimension of the data point.
Our work is mainly inspired by Dwork et al. (2014). Since
they provided the algorithms for (, δ)-DP, we seek the similar approach for (, 0)-DP with a different noise matrix design. As input perturbation methods, Blum et al. (2005) and
Dwork et al. (2014) both used the Gaussian symmetric noise
matrix for privately publishing a noisy covariance matrix. A
reasonable worry is that the published matrix might be no
longer positive semidefinite, a normal attribute for a covariance matrix.

Contribution and Organization
In this paper we propose a new mechanism for privacypreserving PCA that we call Wishart mechanism. The key
idea is to add a Wishart noise matrix to the original sample covariance matrix. A Wishart matrix is always positive
semidefinite, which in turn makes the perturbed covariance
matrix positive semidefinite. Additionally, Wishart matrix
can be regarded as the scatter matrix of some random Gaussian vectors (Gupta and Nagar 2000). Consequently, our
Wishart mechanism equivalently adds Gaussian noise to the
original data points.

Setting appropriate parameters of Wishart distribution, we
derive the (, 0)-privacy guarantee (Theorem 4). Compared
to the present Laplace mechanism, our Wishart mechanism
adds less noise (Section 4), which implies our mechanism
always has better utility bound. We also provide a general
framework for choosing Laplace or Wishart input perturbation for (, 0)-DP in Section 4.
Not only using the Laplace mechanism as a baseline,
we also conduct theoretical analysis to compare our work
with other privacy-preserving PCA algorithms based on the
(, 0)-DP. With respect to the different criteria, we provide sample complexity bound (Theorem 7) for comparison with Chaudhuri, Sarwate, and Sinha (2012) and derive
the low rank approximation closeness when comparing to
Kapralov and Talwar (2013). Other than the principal eigenvector guarantee in (Chaudhuri, Sarwate, and Sinha 2012),
we have the guarantee for rank-k subspace closeness (Theorem 6). With using a stronger definition of adjacent matrices,
we achieve a k-free utility bound (Theorem 9). Converting
the lower bound construction in (Chaudhuri, Sarwate, and
Sinha 2012; Kapralov and Talwar 2013) into our case, we
can see the Wishart mechanism is near-optimal.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 gives the notation and definitions used in our paper.
Section 3 lists the baseline and our designed algorithms.
Section 4 provides the thorough analysis on privacy and utility guarantee of our mechanism together with comparison to
several highly-related work. Finally, we conclude the work
in Section 5. Note that we put some proofs and more explanation into the supplementary material.

2

Preliminaries

We first give some notation that will be used in this paper.
Let Im denote the m×m identity matrix. Given an m×n real
matrix Z = [Zij ], let its full singular value decomposition
(SVD) as Z = U ΣV T , where U ∈ Rm×m and V ∈ Rn×n
are orthogonal (i.e., U T U = Im and V T V = In ), and Σ ∈
Rm×n is a diagonal matrix with the ith diagonal entry σi
being the ith largest singular value of Z. Assume that the
rank of Z is ρ (≤ min(m, n)). This implies that Z has ρ
nonzero singular values. Let Uk and Vk be the first k (< ρ)
columns of U and V , respectively, and Σk be the k × k top
sub-block of Σ. Then the m × n matrix Zk = Uk Σk VkT is
the best rank-k approximation to Z.
The Frobenius
s norm of Z is defined as kZkF =
rP
ρ
P
2
Zij
=
σi2 , the spectral norm is defined as
i,j

kZk2 =
kZk∗ =
P
|Zij |.

i=1

kZxk
max kxk 2
2
x6=0
ρ
P
i=1

= σ1 , the nuclear norm is define as

σi , and the `1,1 norm is defined as kZk1,1 =

i,j

Given a set of n raw data points X = [x1 , · · · , xn ] where
xi ∈ Rd , we consider the problem of publishing a noisy empirical sample covariance matrix for doing PCA. Following
previous work on privacy-preserving PCA, we also assume

kxi k2 ≤ 1. The standard PCA computes the sample
Pn covari1
1
T
ance matrix of the raw data A = n XX = n i=1 xi xTi .
Since A is a d × d symmetric positive semidefinite matrix,
its SVD is equivalent to the spectral decomposition. That is,
A = V ΣV T . PCA uses Vk as projection matrix to compute
the low-dimensional representation of raw data: Y , VkT X.
In this work we use Laplace and Wishart distributions,
which are defined as follows.
Definition 1. A random variable z is said to have a Laplace
distribution z ∼ Lap(µ, b), if its probability density function
is
1
|z − µ|
p(z) =
exp(−
).
2b
b
Definition 2 ((Gupta and Nagar 2000)). A d × d random
symmetric positive definite matrix W is said to have a
Wishart distribution W ∼ Wd (m, C), if its probability density function is
p(W ) =

|W |
2

md
2

m−d−1
2
m

|C| 2 Γd ( m
2)

1
exp(− tr(C −1 W )),
2

where m > d − 1 and C is a d × d positive definite matrix.
Now we introduce the formal definition of differential privacy.
Definition 3. A randomized mechanism M takes a dataset
D as input and outputs a structure s ∈ R, where R is the
range of M . For any two adjacent datasets D and D̂ (with
only one distinct entry), M is said to be (, 0)-differential
private if for all S ⊆ R we have
Pr{M (D) ∈ S} ≤ e Pr{M (D̂) ∈ S},
where  > 0 is a small parameter controlling the strength of
privacy requirement.
This definition actually sets limitation on the similarity
of output probability distributions for the given similar inputs. Here the adjacent datasets can have several different
interpretations. In the scenario of privacy-preserving PCA,
our definition is as follows. Two datasets X and X̂ are adjacent provided X = [x1 , . . . , xi−1 , xi , xi+1 , . . . , xn ] and
X̂ = [x1 , . . . , xi−1 , x̂i , xi+1 , . . . , xn ] for xi 6= x̂i . It should
be pointed out that our definition of adjacent datasets is
slightly different from (Kapralov and Talwar 2013), which
leads to significant difference on utility bounds. We will give
more specifically discussions in Section 4.
We also give the definition of (, δ)-differential privacy.
This notion requires less privacy protection so that it often
brings better utility guarantee.
Definition 4. A randomized mechanism M takes a dataset
as input and outputs a structure s ∈ R, where R is the range
of M . For any two adjacent datasets D and D̂ (with only
one distinct entry), M is said to be (, δ)-differential private
if for all S ⊆ R we have
Pr[M (D) ∈ S] ≤ e Pr[M (D̂) ∈ S] + δ.
Sensitivity analysis is a general approach to achieving differential privacy. The following definitions show the two
typical kinds of sensitivity.

Definition 5. The `1 sensitivity is defined as
s1 (M ) =

max

M (D) − M (D̂)

.
1

d(D,D̂)=1

The `2 sensitivity is defined as
s2 (M ) =

max

M (D) − M (D̂)

d(D,D̂)=1

.
2

The sensitivity describes the possible largest change as a
result of individual data entry replacement. The `1 sensitivity is used in Laplace Mechanism for (, 0)-differential privacy, while the `2 sensitivity is used in Gaussian Mechanism
for (, δ)-differential privacy. We list the two mechanisms
for comparison.
Theorem 1 (Laplace Mechanism). Let λ > s1 (M )/. Add
Laplace noise Lap(0, λ) to each dimension of M (D). This
mechanism provides (, 0)-differential privacy.
Theorem 2 (Gaussian Mechanism). For c2 > 2 ln(1.25/δ),
let σ > cs2 (M )/. Add Gaussian noise N (0, σ 2 ) to
each dimension of M (D). This mechanism provides (, δ)differential privacy.
The above mechanisms are all perturbation methods. Another widely used method is exponential mechanism (McSherry and Talwar 2007) which is based on sampling techniques.

3

Algorithms

First we look at a general framework of privacy-preserving
PCA. According to the definition of differential privacy, a
privacy-preserving PCA takes the raw data matrix X as input and then calculates the sample covariance matrix A =
1
T
n XX . Finally, it computes the top-k subspace of A as the
output.
The traditional approach adds noise to the computing procedure. For example, Chaudhuri, Sarwate, and Sinha (2012)
and Kapralov and Talwar (2013) used a sampling based
mechanism during computing eigenvectors to obtain approximate results. Our mechanism adds noise in the first
stage, publishing A in a differential private manner. Thus,
our mechanism takes X as input and outputs A. Afterwards
we follow the standard PCA to compute the top-k subspace.
This can be seen as a differential private preprocessing procedure.
Our baseline is the Laplace mechanism (Algorithm 1 and
Theorem 1). To the best of our knowledge, Laplace mechanism is the only input perturbation method for (, 0)-DP
PCA. Since this private procedure ends before computing
the subspace, this shows M (D) = n1 DDT in sensitivity
definition.
Note that to make Â be symmetric, we use a symmetric matrix-variate Laplace distribution in Algorithm 1. However, this mechanism cannot guarantee the positive semidefiniteness of Â, a desirable attribute for a covariance matrix. This motivates us to use a Wishart noise alternatively,
giving rise to the Wishart mechanism in Algorithm 2.

Algorithm 1 Laplace input perturbation
d×n

Input: Raw data matrix X ∈ R
; Privacy parameter ;
Number of data n;
2
2d
1: Draw d 2+d i.i.d. samples from Lap(0, n
), then form a
symmetric matrix L. These samples are put in the upper
triangle part. Each entry in lower triangle part is copied
from the opposite position.
2: Compute A = n1 XX T ;
3: Add noise Â = A + L;
Output: Â;
Algorithm 2 Wishart input perturbation
Input: Raw data matrix X ∈ Rd×n ; Privacy parameter ;
Number of data n;
1: Draw a sample W from Wd (d + 1, C), where C has d
3
same eigenvalues equal to 2n
;
1
T
2: Compute A = n XX ;
3: Add noise Â = A + W ;
Output: Â;

4

Analysis

In this section, we are going to conduct theoretical analysis of Algorithms 1 and 2 under the framework of differential private matrix publishing. The theoretical support has
two parts: privacy and utility guarantee. The former is the
essential requirement for privacy-preserving algorithms and
the latter tells how well the algorithm works against a nonprivate version. Chiefly, we list the valuable theorems and
analysis. All the technical proofs omitted can be found in
the supplementary material.

Privacy guarantee
We first show that both algorithms satisfy privacy guarantee. Suppose there are two adjacent datasets X =
[x1 , . . . , v, . . . , xn ] ∈ Rd×n and X̂ = [x1 , . . . , v̂, . . . , xn ] ∈
Rd×n where v 6= v̂ (i.e., only v and v̂ are distinct). Without
loss of generality, we further assume that each data vector
has the `2 norm at most 1.
Theorem 3. Algorithm 1 provides (, 0)-differential privacy.
This theorem can be quickly proved by some simple
derivations so we put the proof in the supplementary material.
Theorem 4. Algorithm 2 provides (, 0)-differential privacy.
Proof. Assume the outputs for the adjacent inputs X and
X̂ are identical (denoted A + W0 ). Here A = n1 XX T and
Â = n1 X̂ X̂ T . We define the difference matrix ∆ , A− Â =
1
T
T
n (vv − v̂v̂ ). Actually the privacy guarantee is to bound

the following term:
p(A + W = A + W0 )
p(Â + W = A + W0 )
p(W = W0 )
=
p(W = W0 + ∆)

=

p(W = W0 )
p(W = A + W0 − Â)

As W ∼ Wd (d + 1, C), we have that
exp[− 12 tr(C −1 W0 )]
p(W = W0 )
=
p(W = W0 + ∆)
exp[− 12 tr(C −1 (W0 + ∆))]
1
= exp[ tr(C −1 (W0 + ∆)) − tr(C −1 W0 )]
2
1
= exp[ tr(C −1 ∆)].
2
Then apply Von Neumann’s trace inequality: For matrices
A, B ∈ Rd×d , denote their ith-largest singular value as
Pd
σi (·). Then |tr(AB)| ≤ i=1 σi (A)σi (B). So that
d

1
1X
exp[ tr(C −1 ∆)] ≤ exp[
σi (C −1 )σi (∆)]
2
2 i=1
1
≤ exp[ C −1
2

2

(1)

k∆k∗ ].

Since ∆ = A − Â = n1 (vv T − v̂v̂ T ) has rank at most 2,
and by singular value inequality σi+j−1 (A + B) ≤ σi (A) +
σj (B), we can bound k∆k∗ :
n k∆k∗ ≤ σ1 (vv T ) + σ1 (−v̂v̂ T ) + max{σ1 (vv T )
+ σ2 (−v̂v̂ T ), σ2 (vv T ) + σ1 (−v̂v̂ T )}
= σ1 (vv T ) + σ1 (v̂v̂ T ) + max{σ1 (vv T ), σ1 (v̂v̂ T )}
≤ 3 max σ1 (vv T ) = 3 max vv T
=

2
3 max kvk2

2

≤ 3.

In Algorithm 2, the scale matrix C in Wishart distribu3
tion has d same eigenvalues equal to 2n
, which implies
2n
−1
.
Substituting
these
terms
in
Eq. (1) yields
C
=
3
2
p(A + W = A + W0 )

≤ exp[

p(Â + W = A + W0 )
1 2n 3
≤ exp[ ·
· ] = e .
2 3 n

1
C −1
2

2

k∆k∗ ]

Utility guarantee
Then we give bounds about how far the noisy results are
from optimal. Since the Laplace and Wishart mechanisms
are both input perturbation methods, their analyses are similar.
In order to ensure privacy guarantee, we add a noise matrix to the input data. Such noise may have effects on the
property of the original matrix. For input perturbation methods, the magnitude of the noise matrix directly determines
how large the effects are. For example, if the magnitude of
the noise matrix is even larger than data, the matrix after

perturbation is surely covered by noise. Better utility bound
means less noise added. We choose the spectral norm of the
noise matrix to measure its magnitude. Since we are investigating the privacy-preserving PCA problem, the usefulness
of the subspace of the top-k singular vectors is mainly cared.
The noise matrix in the Laplace mechanism is constructed
2
with d 2+d i.i.d random variables of Lap(2d/n). Using the
tail bound for an ensemble matrix in (Tao 2012), we have
that the spectral norm√of the noise matrix in Algorithm 1
satisfies kLk2 = O(2d d/n) with high probability.
Then we turn to analyze the Wishart mechanism. We use
the tail bound of the Wishart distribution in (Zhu 2012):
Lemma 1 (Tail Bound of Wishart Distribution). Let W ∼
Wd (m, C). Then for θ ≥ 0, with probability at most
d exp(−θ),
p
λ1 (W ) ≥ (m + 2mθ(r + 2) + 2θr)λ1 (C)
where r = tr(C)/ kCk2 .
In our settings that r = d and m = d + 1, we thus have
that with probability at most d exp(−θ),
p
λ1 (W ) ≥ (d + 1 + 2(d + 1)(d + 2)θ + 2θd)λ1 (C).
Let θ = c log d(c > 1). Then d exp(−θ) = d1−c . So we
can say with high probability
p
λ1 (W ) = O([d + 1 + 2(d + 1)(d + 2)θ + 2θd]λ1 (C)).
For convenience, we write
λ1 (W ) = O(d log dλ1 (C)) = O(3d log d/2n).
We can see that the spectral norm of noise matrix generated by the Wishart mechanism is√O(d log d/n) while the
Laplace mechanism requires O(d d/n). This implies that
the Wishart mechanism adds less noise to obtain privacy
guarantee. We list the present four input perturbation approaches for comparison. Compared to the state-of-the-art
results about (, δ) case (Dwork et al. 2014), our noise√magd
d
nitude of O( d log
n ) is obviously worse than their O( n ). It
can be seen as the utility gap between (, δ)-DP and (, 0)DP.
Table 1: Spectral norm of noise matrix in input perturbation.
Approach
Noise magnitude
Privacy
√
Laplace
O(d
(, 0)
√ d/n)
(Blum et al. 2005) O(d d log d/n)
(, δ)
Wishart
O(d √
log d/n)
(, 0)
(Dwork et al. 2014)
O( d/n)
(, δ)
General framework We are talking about the intrinsic difference between the Laplace and Wishart mechanisms. The key element is the difference matrix ∆ of
two adjacent matrices. Laplace mechanism adds a noise
matrix according to the `1 sensitivity, which equals to
max k∆k1,1 . Thus, the spectral norm of noise matrix is
√
O(max k∆k1,1 d/n). When it comes to the Wishart

mechanism, the magnitude of noise is determined by
kCk2 . For purpose of satisfying privacy guarantee, we take
kCk2 = ω(max k∆k∗ /n). Then the spectral norm of noise
matrix is O(max k∆k∗ d log d/n). Consequently, we obtain the following theorem.
Theorem 5. M is a d × d symmetric matrix generated by
some input. For two arbitrary adjacent inputs, the generated matrices are M and M̂ . Let ∆ = M − M̂ . Using the
Wishart mechanism to publish M in differential private manner works better if
max k∆k1,1
max k∆k∗

√
= ω( d log d);

otherwise the Laplace mechanism works better.
Top-k subspace closeness We now conduct comparison
between our mechanism and the algorithm in (Chaudhuri,
Sarwate, and Sinha 2012). Chaudhuri, Sarwate, and Sinha
(2012) proposed an exponential-mechanism-based method,
which outputs the top-k subspace by drawing a sample from
the matrix Bingham-von Mises-Fisher distribution. Wang,
Wu, and Wu (2013) applied this algorithm to private spectral analysis on graph and showed that it outperforms the
Laplace mechanism for output perturbation. Because of
the scoring function defined, it is hard to directly sample
from the original Bingham-von Mises-Fisher distribution.
Instead, Chaudhuri, Sarwate, and Sinha (2012) used Gibbs
sampling techniques to reach an approximate solution. However, there is no guarantee for convergence. They check the
convergence heuristically, which may affect the basic privacy guarantee.
First we provide our result on the top-k subspace closeness:
Theorem 6. Let Vˆk be the top-k subspace of A+W in Algorithm 2. Denote the non-noisy subspace as Vk corresponding
to A. Assume σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ · · · ≥ σd are singular values of A.
If σk − σk+1 ≥ 2 kW k2 , then with high probability
√
2 k kW k2
T
T
Vk Vk − V̂k V̂k
≤
.
σk − σk+1
F
We apply the well-known Davis-Kahan sin θ theorem (Davis 1963) to obtain this result. This theorem characterizes the usefulness of our noisy top-k subspace. Nevertheless, Chaudhuri, Sarwate, and Sinha (2012) only provided the utility guarantee on the principal eigenvector. So
we can only compare the top-1 subspace closeness, correspondingly.
Before the comparison, we introduce the measure in
(Chaudhuri, Sarwate, and Sinha 2012).
Definition 6. A randomized algorithm A(·) is an (ρ, η)close approximation to the top eigenvector if for all data
sets D of n points, output a vector vˆ1 such that
P(hvˆ1 , v1 i ≥ ρ) ≥ 1 − η.
Under this measure, we derive the sample complexity of
the Wishart mechanism.

Theorem 7. If n ≥

q
3(d+1+ 2(d+1)(d+2) log

d
d
η +2d log η )
2
2(1−ρ )(λ1 −λ2 )

√

and

ρ ≥ 22 , then the Wishart mechanism is a (ρ, η)-close approximation to PCA.
Because a useful algorithm should output
an eigenvector
√
2
making ρ close to 1, our condition of ρ ≥ 2 is quite weak.
Comparing to the sample complexity bound of the algorithm
in (Chaudhuri, Sarwate, and Sinha 2012):
1

Theorem

8.

If

n

≥

log η
d
(1−ρ)(λ1 −λ2 ) ( d

+

1
log (1−ρ24λ
(Chaudhuri,
)(λ1 −λ2 ) ), then the algorithm in
Sarwate, and Sinha 2012) is a (ρ, η)-close approximation
to PCA.
Our result has a factor up to log d with dropping the term
1
1
. Actually, the relationship between d and λ1λ−λ
log λ1λ−λ
2
2
heavily depends on the data. Thus, as a special case of topk subspace closeness, our bound for the top-1 subspace is
comparable to Chaudhuri, Sarwate, and Sinha’s (2012).

Low rank approximation Here we discuss the comparison between the Wishart mechanism and privacy-preserving
rank-k approximation algorithm proposed in (Kapralov and
Talwar 2013; Hardt and Price 2014). PCA can be seen
as a special case of low rank approximation problems.
Kapralov and Talwar (2013) combined the exponential and
Laplace mechanisms to design a low rank approximation algorithm for a symmetric matrix, providing strict guarantee
on convergence. However, the implementation of the algorithm contains too many approximation techniques and it
takes O(d6 /) time complexity while our algorithm takes
O(kd2 ) running time. Hardt and Price (2014) proposed an
efficient meta algorithm, which can be applied to (, δ)differentially private PCA. Additionally, they provided a
(, 0)-differentially private version.
We need to point out that the definition of adjacent matrix
in privacy-preserving low rank approximation is different
from ours (our definition is the same as (Dwork et al. 2014;
Chaudhuri, Sarwate, and Sinha 2012)). In the definition
(Kapralov and Talwar 2013; Hardt and Price 2014), two matrices A and B are called adjacent if kA − Bk2 ≤ 1, while
we restrict the difference to a certain form vv T − v̂v̂ T . In
fact, we make a stronger assumption so that we are dealing
with a case of less sensitivity. This difference impacts the
lower bound provided in (Kapralov and Talwar 2013).
For the consistence of comparison, we remove the term
1
T
n in Algorithm 2, which means we use the XX for PCA
1
instead of n XX T . This is also used by Dwork et al. (2014).
Applying Lemma 1 in (Achlioptas and McSherry 2001),
we can immediately have the following theorem:
Theorem 9. Suppose the original matrix is A = XX T and
Aˆk is the rank-k approximation of output by the Wishart
mechanism. Denote the k-th largest eigenvalue of A as λk .
Then
d log d
A − Âk ≤ λk+1 + O(
).

2
3
Kapralov and Talwar (2013) provided a bound of O( k  d )
and Hardt and Price (2014) provided O( k

3
2

d log2 d
)


same scenario. If k 3 is larger than log d, our algorithm will
work better. Moreover, our mechanism has better bounds
than that of Hardt and Price (2014) while both algorithms
are computationally efficient. Kapralov and Talwar (2013)
established a lower bound of O( kd
 ) according to their definition of adjacent matrix. If replaced with our definition, the
lower bound will become O( d ). The details will be given
in the in supplementary material. So our mechanism is nearoptimal.

for the

5

Concluding Remarks

We have studied the problem of privately publishing a
symmetric matrix and provided an approach for choosing
Laplace or Wishart noise properly. In the scenario of PCA,
our Wishart mechanism adds less noise than the Laplace,
which leads to better utility guarantee. Compared with the
privacy-preserving PCA algorithm in (Chaudhuri, Sarwate,
and Sinha 2012), our mechanism has reliable rank-k utility guarantee while the former (Chaudhuri, Sarwate, and
Sinha 2012) only has rank-1. For rank-1 approximation
we have the comparable performance on sample complexity. Compared with the low rank approximation algorithm
in (Kapralov and Talwar 2013), the bound of our mechanism does not depend on k. Moreover, our method is more
tractable computationally. Compared with the tractable algorithm in (Hardt and Price 2014), our utility bound is better.
Since input perturbation only publishes the matrix for
PCA, any other procedure can take the noisy matrix as input. Thus, our approach has more flexibility. While other
entry-wise input perturbation techniques make the covariance not be positive semidefinite, in our case the noisy covariance matrix still preserves this property.

Acknowledgments
We thank Luo Luo for the meaningful technical discussion. We also thank Yujun Li, Tianfan Fu for support on the
early stage of the work. This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61572017)
and the Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai City (No.
15ZR1424200).

References
Achlioptas, D., and McSherry, F. 2001. Fast computation
of low rank matrix approximations. In Proceedings of the
thirty-third annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, 611–618. ACM.
Blum, A.; Dwork, C.; McSherry, F.; and Nissim, K. 2005.
Practical privacy: the sulq framework. In Proceedings of the
twenty-fourth ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium
on Principles of database systems, 128–138. ACM.
Bojarski, M.; Choromanska, A.; Choromanski, K.; and LeCun, Y. 2014. Differentially-and non-differentially-private
random decision trees. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.6973.
Chaudhuri, K., and Monteleoni, C. 2009. Privacy-preserving
logistic regression. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 289–296.

Chaudhuri, K.; Monteleoni, C.; and Sarwate, A. D. 2011.
Differentially private empirical risk minimization. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 12:1069–1109.
Chaudhuri, K.; Sarwate, A.; and Sinha, K. 2012. Nearoptimal differentially private principal components. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 989–997.
Davis, C. 1963. The rotation of eigenvectors by a perturbation. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications
6(2):159–173.
Dwork, C.; McSherry, F.; Nissim, K.; and Smith, A. 2006.
Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis. In
Theory of cryptography. Springer. 265–284.
Dwork, C.; Talwar, K.; Thakurta, A.; and Zhang, L. 2014.
Analyze gauss: optimal bounds for privacy-preserving principal component analysis. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual
ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 11–20. ACM.
Gupta, A. K., and Nagar, D. K. 2000. Matrix Variate Distributions. Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Hardt, M., and Price, E. 2014. The noisy power method:
A meta algorithm with applications. In Advances in Neural
Information Processing Systems, 2861–2869.
Hardt, M., and Roth, A. 2012. Beating randomized response
on incoherent matrices. In Proceedings of the forty-fourth
annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, 1255–
1268. ACM.
Hardt, M., and Roth, A. 2013. Beyond worst-case analysis
in private singular vector computation. In Proceedings of the
forty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing,
331–340. ACM.
Kapralov, M., and Talwar, K. 2013. On differentially private low rank approximation. In Proceedings of the TwentyFourth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, 1395–1414. SIAM.
McSherry, F., and Talwar, K. 2007. Mechanism design via
differential privacy. In Foundations of Computer Science,
2007. FOCS’07. 48th Annual IEEE Symposium on, 94–103.
IEEE.
Tao, T. 2012. Topics in random matrix theory, volume 132.
American Mathematical Soc.
Wang, Y.; Wu, X.; and Wu, L. 2013. Differential privacy
preserving spectral graph analysis. In Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Springer. 329–340.
Zhu, S. 2012. A short note on the tail bound of wishart
distribution. arXiv preprint arXiv:1212.5860.

Supplementary material
A

Proof of privacy guarantee

The basic settings are the same as section 4.

Proof of Theorem 3
In order to prove Theorem 3, we first give the following
lemma.
Lemma 2. For mechanism M (D) =
tivity s1 satisfies

1
T
n DD ,

the `1 sensi-

d
2d
< s1 (M ) <
.
n
n
Proof. Suppose v = (p1 , · · · , pd )T and v̂ = (q1 , · · · , qd )T .
Then the `1 sensitivity of M (D) can be converted to the
following optimization problem:
1 X
s1 (M ) = max
|pi pj − qi qj |,
n
1≤i,j≤d

subject to

d
X

p2i ≤ 1,

i=1

Setting pi =

√1
d

d
X

qi2 ≤ 1.

i=1

and qi = 0 for i = 1, . . . , d, we can have

a lower bound s1 (M ) ≥ nd . Then applying the triangle inequality, we have the upper bound:
X
X
|pi pj − qi qj | <
|pi pj | + |qi qj |
1≤i,j≤d

1≤i,j≤d

X

=2

|pi pj | ≤

1≤i,j≤d

2d
.
n

Now applying Lemma 2 to Theorem 1 immediately obtains the privacy guarantee for the Laplace mechanism.

B

Proof of utility guarantee

Proof of Theorem 6
Proof. We use the following two lemmas.
Lemma 3 (Davis-Kahan sin θ theorem (Davis 1963)). Let
the k-th eigenvector of A and Â be vk and vˆk . Denote Pk =
k
k
P
P
vk vkT and Pˆk =
vˆk vˆk T . If λk (A) > λk+1 (Â), then
i=1

i=1

Pk − Pˆk

A − Â
≤
2

2

λk (A) − λk+1 (Â)

.

Lemma 4 (Weyl’s inequality). If M , H and P are d × d
Hermitian matrices such that M = H + P . Let the k-th
eigenvalues of M , H and P be µk , νk and ρk , respectively.
For i ∈ [n], we have
νi + ρd ≤ µi ≤ νi + ρ1 .

In our case, A and Â are both symmetric positive semidefinite (because of the property of Wishart distribution). So the
eigenvalues equal to singular values. Then we use Lemma 4
with A = H and W = P . We obtain
σi (A + W ) ≤ σi (A) + σ1 (W ) = σi (A) + kW k2 .
Applying Lemma3 with A = A and Â = A + W leads to
Pk − Pˆk

2

= Vk VkT − V̂k V̂kT

2

≤

2 kW k2
.
σk − σk+1

≤
F

√

k Vk VkT − V̂k V̂kT

2

we finish the proof.

Proof of Theorem 7
We are going to find the condition on sample complexity to
satisfy (ρ, η)-close approximation.
Proof. Set k = 1 in Theorem 6. Then
V1 V1T − V̂1 V̂1T

F

= v1 v1T − v̂1 v̂1T
=

tr[(v1 v1T

−

F

v̂1 v̂1T )(v1 v1T

= 2 − 2(v1T v̂1 )2 ≤

− v̂1 v̂1T )T ]

2 kW k2
.
λ1 − λ2

The condition λ1 − λ2 ≥ 2 kW k2 requires the last term
√
to have a upper bound of 1, which implies |v1T v̂1 | ≥ 22 .
Let η = d exp(−θ), which is θ = log ηd , we have that with
probability 1 − η,
kW k2
≥1−
λ1 − λ2
p
(d + 1 + 2(d + 1)(d + 2)θ + 2θd)λ1 (C)
=1−
λ1 − λ2
q
3(d + 1 + 2(d + 1)(d + 2) log ηd + 2d log ηd )
=1−
.
2n(λ1 − λ2 )

(v1T v̂1 )2

Under theqcondition
n≥

3(d+1+

Which

2(d+1)(d+2) log
2(1−ρ2 )(λ

d
d
η +2d log η )

1 −λ2 )

(v1T v̂1 )2 ≥ 1 − (1 − ρ2 ) =
yields Pr(v1T v̂1 ≥ ρ) ≥ 1 − η.

ρ2

Lemma 5. Define Cδk (Y ) = {S ∈ Gk,d :
Y Y T − SS T 2 ≤ δ}. For each δ > 0 there exists family F = {Y 1 , · · · , Y N } with N = 2Ω(k(d−k) log 1/δ) , where
Y i ∈ Gk,d such that Cδk (Y i ) ∩ Cδk (Y j ) = ∅ for i 6= j.

2

≤ λk+1 + Ω(d/).

Proof. Take a set F = {Y 1 , · · · , Y N } in Lemma 5. Construct a series of matrices Ai = γYi YiT where i ∈ [N ].
Then
h
i
EAi Ai − Aˆik
≤ δγ.
2

Using the property
Vk VkT − V̂k V̂kT

We mainly follow the construction of Kapralov and Talwar
(2013) and make a slight modification to fit into our definition of adjacent matrices.

A − Aˆk

Under the assumption σk −σk+1 ≥ 2 kW k2 , we finally have
2

Lower bound for low rank approximation

Theorem 10. Suppose the original matrix is A = XX T
and Aˆk is the rank-k approximation of output by the any
-differential private mechanism. Denote the k-th largest
eigenvalue of A as λk . Then

kW k2
≤
λk (A) − λk+1 (A + W )
kW k2
≤
λk (A) − λk+1 (A) − kW k2
kW k2
=
.
σk − σk+1 − kW k2

Vk VkT − V̂k V̂kT

C

T
ei = Ŷi Ŷi T , we have
Let Aˆik = Ŷi Σ̂Ŷi . Then letting A
k
i
h
i
i
ek
≤ 2δγ.
EAi A − A
2

Using Markov’s inequality leads to
h
i
eik ≤ 4δγ > 1 .
Pri Ai − A
2
A
2
Here is the main difference between our definition and
Kapralov and Talwar (2013). They consider the distance
from Ai to Aj is at most 2γ since Ai 2 ≤ γ. In our framework, Ai is a dataset consisting of γ data groups, each one is
Y i . Changing Ai to Aj means replacing γk data points with
brand new ones. So we consider the distance is at most 2γk.
The algorithm should put at least half of the probability
k
(Y i ). Meanwhile, to satisfy the privacy guarmass into C4δ
antee
k
(Y i )}
Pr{M (Ai ) ∈ C4δ
≤ e2γk
k (Y i )}
Pr{M (Aj ) ∈ C4δ
k
So Pr{M (Aj ) ∈ C4δ
(Y i )} ≥ 21 e−2γk , we have

1 −2γk Ω(k(d−k) log 1/δ)
e
·2
≤1
2
Which implies γ = Ω(d log(1/δ)/) and completes our
proof.

