1
$\begingroup$

The "Algorithmic Foundations of Differential Privacy" book (DOI: 10.1561/0400000042) introduces formally the "universe" and "database" on page 17 roughly as:

  • $\mathcal{X}$ is a universe
  • databases $x$ are collections of records from the universe
  • For convenience, we use histogram of types from the universe $\mathcal{X}$ to represent $x$, such that: $x \in \mathbb{N}^{|\mathcal{X}|}$ where each entry $x_i$ represents the number of elements in the database $x$ of type $i \in \mathcal{X}$

If you take the example from Wikipedia

Table

  • The universe $\mathcal{X}$ is a set $\{0, 1\}$?
  • The database $x$ is
    • a vector [3, 3] (assuming the universe is ordered)?
    • or a map {0:3, 1:3}?

My two questions are:

  • Is my understanding correct?
  • Why is it "convenient" to do so? What would be the non-convenient alternatives?
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

I am a little late. Your understanding seems correct. $\mathcal{X}=Names \times \{0,1\}$ Where $Names$ are all the possible names that could exist and $x \in \mathbb{N}^{2}$ (Because of $|\mathcal{X}|=2$).

Then you can choose one column and select the histogram of the type you want. Then you can express $x=(x_0,x_1)=(3,3)$ or $x=(x_{ross},...,x_{Rachel})=(1,..,1)$. A you see the first one is more convenient.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.