Normalized Square Root: Sharper Matrix Factorization Bounds for Differentially Private Continual Counting

September 17, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› arXiv.org

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Monika Henzinger, Nikita P. Kalinin, Jalaj Upadhyay arXiv ID 2509.14334 Category cs.DS: Data Structures & Algorithms Cross-listed cs.CR, cs.LG Citations 5 Venue arXiv.org Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
The factorization norms of the lower-triangular all-ones $n \times n$ matrix, $Ξ³_2(M_{count})$ and $Ξ³_{F}(M_{count})$, play a central role in differential privacy as they are used to give theoretical justification of the accuracy of the only known production-level private training algorithm of deep neural networks by Google. Prior to this work, the best known upper bound on $Ξ³_2(M_{count})$ was $1 + \frac{\log n}Ο€$ by Mathias (Linear Algebra and Applications, 1993), and the best known lower bound was $\frac{1}Ο€(2 + \log(\frac{2n+1}{3})) \approx 0.507 + \frac{\log n}Ο€$ (MatouΕ‘ek, Nikolov, Talwar, IMRN 2020), where $\log$ denotes the natural logarithm. Recently, Henzinger and Upadhyay (SODA 2025) gave the first explicit factorization that meets the bound of Mathias (1993) and asked whether there exists an explicit factorization that improves on Mathias' bound. We answer this question in the affirmative. Additionally, we improve the lower bound significantly. More specifically, we show that $$ 0.701 + \frac{\log n}Ο€ + o(1) \;\leq\; Ξ³_2(M_{count}) \;\leq\; 0.846 + \frac{\log n}Ο€ + o(1). $$ That is, we reduce the gap between the upper and lower bound to $0.14 + o(1)$. We also show that our factors achieve a better upper bound for $Ξ³_{F}(M_{count})$ compared to prior work, and we establish an improved lower bound: $$ 0.701 + \frac{\log n}Ο€ + o(1) \;\leq\; Ξ³_{F}(M_{count}) \;\leq\; 0.748 + \frac{\log n}Ο€ + o(1). $$ That is, the gap between the lower and upper bound provided by our explicit factorization is $0.047 + o(1)$.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Data Structures & Algorithms

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted