Local Weight Differential Privacy

• Local Weight Differential Privacy is a framework that assigns individualized privacy budgets per data coordinate or component, enhancing selective privacy protection.
• It is applied in settings like federated learning, graph analytics, and tensor data release to balance stringent privacy guarantees with high utility.
• LWDP employs context-aware, weighted noise mechanisms that optimize privacy loss allocation, yielding improved convergence rates and reduced sample complexity.

Local weight differential privacy (LWDP) encompasses a class of privacy definitions and mechanisms in which privacy guarantees are individually parameterized for different data coordinates, weights, or structural components. Unlike classical local differential privacy (LDP), which applies a uniform indistinguishability constraint to all elements of an individual's data, LWDP admits selective or weighted allocations of privacy budgets, adapting to data or application context to yield sharper utility–privacy trade-offs. LWDP has been formalized and deployed in several domains, including federated learning, distributed optimization, graph analytics, and high-dimensional tensor release, as well as in generalized, context-aware privacy models.

1. Formal Definitions and Principles

The canonical LDP definition—that a randomized mechanism 𝓜, for every pair of possible user inputs $x,x'$ and every output set $S$, satisfies

$$\Pr[\mathcal{M}(x)\in S] \leq e^{\varepsilon} \Pr[\mathcal{M}(x')\in S]$$

—is extended in LWDP by tailoring the privacy loss parameter $\varepsilon$ to specific weights or data dimensions.

Examples of weighted LDP formulations include:

• Edge-weighted graph analytics: A mechanism $\mathcal{R}$ on a node's incident weight vector $w\in \mathbb{Z}^d$ is $\varepsilon$-local weight differentially private if

$$\Pr[\mathcal{R}(w)\in S] \leq e^{\varepsilon}\,\Pr[\mathcal{R}(w')\in S]$$

for all $w, w'$ differing by at most $1$ in any coordinate, i.e., $\|w - w'\|_1 \leq 1$ (Pfisterer et al., 5 Jan 2026).

• Tensor data with entry-wise weighting: For tensor data $\mathcal{X}$, a coordinate-wise relaxation is achieved by assigning an entry-specific weight $w_{i_1 \ldots i_N} \in [0,1]$, so that

$$\Pr[\mathcal M(\mathcal X)=\mathcal Y] \leq e^{(1-w_{i_1\ldots i_N})\epsilon} \Pr[\mathcal M(\mathcal X')=\mathcal Y]$$

whenever $\mathcal X, \mathcal X'$ differ only at the specified entry (Yuan et al., 25 Feb 2025).

• Context-aware (matrix-weighted) LDP: The privacy matrix $E = (\varepsilon_{x,x'})$ allows per-pair privacy tuning, resulting in mechanisms $Q$ satisfying

$Q(S\mid x) \leq e^{\varepsilon_{x,x'}} Q(S\mid x')$

for all $x, x'$ in the data domain (Acharya et al., 2019).

LWDP retains desirable properties such as robustness to post-processing and compositionality, mirroring those of standard LDP.

2. Mechanisms for LWDP in Distributed and Federated Learning

Local weight differential privacy mechanisms are widely deployed in distributed machine learning, especially federated learning (FL). Key approaches include:

• Per-coordinate or per-weight privatization: Each coordinate (or weight) of a model update is privately perturbed. In LDP-FL, a two-point mechanism is applied to each coordinate, achieving

$$w^* = M(w) = \begin{cases} c + r \frac{e^\epsilon + 1}{e^\epsilon - 1}, & \text{with probability } p(w) \ c - r \frac{e^\epsilon + 1}{e^\epsilon - 1}, & \text{otherwise} \end{cases}$$

with $p(w)$ chosen to ensure $\epsilon$-LDP on a bounded range $[c-r, c+r]$ (Sun et al., 2020). Parameter shuffling is used to break linkage across coordinates and iterations, preventing privacy budget explosion.

• Gaussian mechanisms with individualized noise: In federated SGD, clipped gradients $\bar{g}^{(t)}_{k}$ are perturbed as

$$\tilde{g}^{(t)}_k = \bar{g}^{(t)}_k + Z^{(t)}_k, \quad Z^{(t)}_k \sim \mathcal{N}(0, C^2\sigma_k^2 I_d)$$

where the noise variance $\sigma_k^2$ is determined by the target $(\epsilon_k, \delta_k)$-LDP over $T$ rounds, accounting for per-user sampling and using advanced privacy accountants for tight composition (Kim et al., 2021).

• Weighted aggregation in distributed DP-ERM: In distributed empirical risk minimization, holding heterogeneous data across clients, WD-DP defines a mechanism as $(\epsilon, \delta)$-DP if, for any data differing in a single record on a single client,

$$\Pr[\mathcal A(D) \in S] \leq e^{\epsilon} \Pr[\mathcal A(D') \in S] + \delta$$

with aggregation weights $w_j = n_j / n$ proportional to dataset sizes, yielding a tighter noise bound and improved utility in the presence of data-imbalance (Kang et al., 2019).

3. LWDP for Graphs, Tensors, and Structural Data

Recent literature has formalized LWDP beyond vectors:

• LWDP for edge-weighted graphs: For releasing below-threshold triangle counts, each node publishes noisy incident-weight vectors under $\epsilon$-LWDP, then locally aggregates noisy counts. Both biased and unbiased estimators are analyzed for bias, variance, and covariance, with global or smooth sensitivity mechanisms ensuring privacy (Pfisterer et al., 5 Jan 2026).
• Tensor-weighted LDP (TLDP): Tensor data $$\mathcal{X}\in \mathbb{R}^{I_1\times \cdots \times I_N}$$ is privatized by applying a randomized response on each entry, optionally weighted. The key innovation is a retain-or-perturb mechanism:
  1. For each entry, with probability $p_{\mathbf{i}}$ (function of the assigned weight), retain the true value; otherwise, add Laplace or Gaussian noise.
  2. The weight matrix $W$ tunes $p_{\mathbf{i}}$, allowing prioritization of privacy on sensitive sub-tensors. This mechanism yields a factor-$I$ reduction in noise relative to naive coordinate-wise DP (Yuan et al., 25 Feb 2025).

4. Analytical Trade-offs: Privacy, Utility, and Communication

LWDP mechanisms exhibit quantifiable trade-offs among privacy, utility (accuracy), and communication cost:

• Privacy–utility–rate interplay in federated learning: In the federated SGD setting, smaller target privacy $\epsilon$ (i.e., stronger privacy) necessitates higher noise variance, which leads to larger convergence gaps in global loss and higher per-round communication rates. The convergence rate is characterized as

$$\mathbb{E}[L(w^{(T)})] - L(w^*) \leq \frac{\mu G^2}{\lambda^2 T} \max\{2, 1 + d\sigma^2\}$$

where $\sigma^2$ encapsulates the (possibly heterogeneous) noise variance across users. Communication rate increases as $\sim d \ln \sigma$ with stronger privacy (Kim et al., 2021).

• Bias and variance in graph statistics: In triangle counting, the biased estimator incurs a bias bounded by $e^{-\epsilon_1}/(1+e^{-\epsilon_1})$, while the unbiased estimator achieves zero bias with variance scaling favorably for large subgraph counts. Pre-computation (load-balancing) and smooth sensitivity further reduce estimation error (Pfisterer et al., 5 Jan 2026).

• Dimensionality scaling: In TLDP, noise variance per coordinate is reduced by $1/I$ (number of tensor entries), yielding dramatically improved utility compared to naive independent noise addition or matrix-variate/ tensor-variate mechanisms (Yuan et al., 25 Feb 2025).
• Sample complexity and context-awareness: In context-aware or block-structured settings, allocating privacy only where needed (e.g., within sensitive groups/symbols) can offer orders-of-magnitude reductions in necessary sample size for downstream estimation tasks, as per

$$n = \Theta\left(\frac{\sum_{j} k_j^2}{\alpha^2\epsilon^2}\right)$$

for block-structured LDP (Acharya et al., 2019).

5. Optimality and Mechanism Design under LWDP

Mechanism design under LWDP (and more general context-aware LDP) departs from classical randomized response:

• Context-aware weighted LDP (E-LDP): For a privacy matrix $E$ over data domain pairs, a universally optimal binary privatization mechanism exists, maximizing any utility satisfying the data-processing inequality. Closed-form constructions interpolate between Warner’s randomized response and improved mechanisms such as Mangat's, depending on the privacy requirements of the underlying symbol-pairs (Acharya et al., 2019).
• Selective privatization: In high-low or block-structured LDP, the mechanism need only obfuscate within sensitive subsets or blocks, enabling mechanisms (e.g., Hadamard-based privatization) that are provably optimal in terms of sample complexity and bandwidth (Acharya et al., 2019).
• Weighted per-coordinate noise allocation: TLDP and related schemes exploit a weight matrix to adapt the privacy guarantee per coordinate/component, balancing privacy loss and reconstruction error analytically (Yuan et al., 25 Feb 2025).

6. Applications, Empirical Evaluation, and Practical Guidelines

LWDP and its mechanisms have been applied across a spectrum of data modalities and tasks:

• Federated learning: Empirical evaluations with deep models (CNNs, VGGs) on MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, CIFAR-10 confirm that split–shuffle LDP-FL delivers near noise-free accuracy with small privacy budgets and avoids high-dimensional privacy budget explosion (Sun et al., 2020). Adaptive per-layer sensitivity selection yields significant performance gains, especially for heterogeneous, deep architectures.
• Graph analytics: On weighted telecommunication and biological network datasets, smooth-sensitivity-based LWDP protocols substantially reduce relative error in subgraph counting tasks compared to baseline and global-Laplace approaches. Pre-computation for covariance minimization boosts estimator accuracy (Pfisterer et al., 5 Jan 2026).
• Tensor data release: In distributed learning with images, temporal signals, or network traffic tensors, TLDP and weighted TLDP drastically outperform classic unweighted or matrix-variate mechanisms in F1 and accuracy metrics, especially in the small-$\epsilon$ regime (Yuan et al., 25 Feb 2025).
• Guidelines: Weight matrix (or per-component) selection is best driven by knowledge of feature importance or sensitivity. Block-wise processing and local sketching/compression further mitigate communication cost. Choice of $\epsilon$ relies on target utility (e.g., F1, loss), and closed-form utility–privacy error bounds provide analytical guidance for system designers.

7. Connections and Generalizations: Heterogeneity, Composition, and Context

LWDP is part of a broader movement toward privacy definitions and mechanisms that reflect structural heterogeneity and real-world contextual constraints. By incorporating per-coordinate, per-block, or per-client adaptivity, one overcomes practical limitations of uniform LDP—especially sample complexity blowups and utility degradation in high-dimensional or heterogeneous-data settings (Kang et al., 2019, Acharya et al., 2019). Context-aware instantiations enable practitioners to match privacy budgets with actual application needs, conferring provable improvements in sample complexity, noise magnitude, and downstream statistical accuracy. This trend aligns with practical deployment requirements in privacy-sensitive domains such as healthcare, mobility analytics, and large-scale federated systems.

---

Key References:

• "Publishing Below-Threshold Triangle Counts under Local Weight Differential Privacy" (Pfisterer et al., 5 Jan 2026)
• "Local Differential Privacy for Tensors in Distributed Computing Systems" (Yuan et al., 25 Feb 2025)
• "LDP-FL: Practical Private Aggregation in Federated Learning with Local Differential Privacy" (Sun et al., 2020)
• "Federated Learning with Local Differential Privacy: Trade-offs between Privacy, Utility, and Communication" (Kim et al., 2021)
• "Weighted Distributed Differential Privacy ERM: Convex and Non-convex" (Kang et al., 2019)
• "Context-Aware Local Differential Privacy" (Acharya et al., 2019)