betaFeedback

WorksComputer Science

Differentially Private Preconditioned Power Iteration Method for Principal Component Analysis that Adapts to the Coherence

Abstract

In Principal Component Analysis (PCA), we are given as input a matrix A∈Rn×dA\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times d} and an integer k≤dk\leq d, and the goal is to find the top kk right-singular vectors of AA. We consider the setting where each row of AA is the private data of an individual, and we design an (ε,δ)(ε,δ)-differentially private algorithm whose utility guarantee improves with the coherence of the input matrix. Prior works were either restricted to the case k=1k=1 or ensured significantly weaker privacy protections. Our algorithm is based on a preconditioned variant of the power iteration method that is designed to significantly reduce the noise needed to ensure privacy.

Introduction

Principal component analysis (PCA) is a fundamental tool for dimensionality reduction, data visualization, and low-rank approximation [2]. Given a data matrix A∈Rn×dA \in\mathbb{R}^{n \times d}, PCA finds a low-dimensional subspace that captures as much of the variation in the data as possible. If A=UΣVTA = U\Sigma V^{\mathsf{T}} is the singular value decomposition of AA, the optimal rank-kk subspace is spanned by the top kk right singular vectors Vk=[v1 ⋯ vk]V_k = [v_1 \ \cdots\ v_k]. It is also the rank kk subspace that maximizes the total squared lengths of the projections of the data.

When the rows of AA contain information about individuals, releasing a subspace computed from AA can reveal information about a particular row. This motivates differentially private algorithms for PCA. We consider row-level privacy, where each row represents the data of one individual. We assume that every row has ℓ2\ell_2 norm at most 1, and two matrices are adjacent if one row is replaced. Normalizing the lengths of the rows is natural because we would like to measure the correlation with the entire dataset and no single data point should have an outsize contribution. The goal is to estimate VkV_k while protecting the privacy of every individual row. In this model, Dwork et al. [ [9] give a private rank-kk PCA algorithm whose subspace error scales with O~(d)\widetilde{O}(\sqrt{d}). Thus, the error can be large when the number of dimensions dd is large. This motivates utility guarantees that exploit additional structure of the input matrix. One such structural parameter is coherence, which is related to the largest absolute entries of the left singular vectors UU. Intuitively, coherence captures the difficulty in privatizing the singular vectors because it measures the maximum correlation between the singular vectors and individual data rows. The more the singular vectors reveal about one row, the more perturbation we need to protect privacy. On the other hand, for many natural datasets, such as when the data is close to i.i.d. data generated from a generative model, the coherence can be shown to be small. Previous work has shown that coherence-dependent guarantees can substantially improve on worst-case bounds on low-coherence data [Hardt and Roth, 2012, 2013, Hardt and Price, 2014, Balcan et al., 2016, Nicolas et al., 2025, d’Orsi and Novikov, 2026, Nguyen et al., 2026].

However, most earlier coherence-dependent guarantees were obtained under privacy models different from the row-level ℓ2\ell_2 model considered in our paper. For example, Hardt and Roth [ [12] consider entry-level adjacency, under which neighboring matrices differ in a single entry by at most 1. Subsequent rank-kk results use structured adjacency models that, when restricted to a one-row change, impose a ℓ1\ell_1-norm restriction on the changed row [Nicolas et al., 2025, d’Orsi and Novikov, 2026]. These models do not cover all neighboring datasets in our setting, since a row aa satisfying ∥a∥2≤1\|a\|_2\le1 can have ∥a∥1\|a\|_1 as large as d\sqrt{d}. Nguyen et al. [ [17] recently gave the first coherence-adaptive guarantee under row-level ℓ2\ell_2 privacy. However, their algorithm and analysis are specific to estimating a single leading singular vector, leaving the analogous rank-kk problem open.

In this work, we give a coherence-adaptive algorithm for estimating the top-kk right singular subspace under row-level ℓ2\ell_2 differential privacy. Our result extends the coherence-adaptive utility guarantee of Nguyen et al. [ [17] from the leading singular vector to the top-kk singular subspace while retaining the same privacy model. Our algorithm is based on a preconditioned and clipped variant of block power iteration. It does not require the coherence or the ratio σk+12/σk2\sigma_{k+1}^2/\sigma_k^2 as input, and its utility improves when the input has low coherence. The prior work is also suboptimal when the ratio σk+12/σk2\sigma_{k+1}^2/\sigma_k^2 is very close to 1 whereas our algorithm remains near optimal for all regimes of the ratio.

Our contributions

Let Δk:=σk2−σk+12\Delta_k := \sigma_k^2 - \sigma_{k+1}^2 and let ∥(I−X^X^T)Vk∥2\left\lVert(I-\widehat{X}\widehat{X}^{\mathsf{T}})V_k \right\rVert_2 denote the error of an output X^∈Rd×k\widehat{X} \in\mathbb{R}^{d \times k} with orthonormal columns. Let aiTa_i^{\mathsf{T}} denote the iith row of AA, and recall that ∥ai∥2≤1\lVert a_i \rVert_2 \le1. We write Uk=U:,1:kU_k = U_{:,1:k}, Σk=diag⁡(σ1,…,σk)\Sigma_k = \operatorname{diag}(\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_k), ∥U∥∞=max⁡i,j∣Uij∣\lVert U \rVert_\infty= \max_{i,j} |U_{ij}|. For the iith standard basis vector eie_i, we have ∥eiTUk∥2≤k∥U∥∞\lVert e_i^{\mathsf{T}} U_k \rVert_2 \le\sqrt{k} \lVert U \rVert_\infty.

Our main result is the following:

Theorem 1. Let ϵ,δ,β∈(0,1)\epsilon,\delta,\beta\in(0,1), and suppose that every row of AA has ℓ2\ell_2 norm at most 1. There is an (ϵ,δ)(\epsilon,\delta)-differentially private algorithm that, under the condition

Δk≥Ω~(dϵ+(σkkϵ)2/3+(kσk2∥U∥∞ϵ)2/3),\Delta_k \ge\widetilde{\Omega}\left(\frac{\sqrt{d}}{\epsilon}+\left(\frac{\sigma_k\sqrt{k}}{\epsilon}\right)^{2/3}+\left(\frac{k\sigma_k^2\lVert U\rVert_\infty}{\epsilon}\right)^{2/3}\right),

outputs X^∈Rd×k\widehat{X} \in\mathbb{R}^{d \times k} satisfying, with probability at least 1−β1-\beta,

∥(I−X^X^T)Vk∥22≤(βδn)2+O~(dkσk2∥U∥∞2+1ϵ2Δk2).\left\lVert(I-\widehat{X}\widehat{X}^{\mathsf{T}})V_k \right\rVert_2^2 \le\left(\frac{\beta\delta}{n}\right)^2+\widetilde{O}\left(\frac{dk\sigma_k^2\lVert U\rVert_\infty^2+1}{\epsilon^2\Delta_k^2}\right).

The algorithm does not require ∥U∥∞\lVert U\rVert_\infty, Δk\Delta_k, or σk+12/σk2\sigma_{k+1}^2/\sigma_k^2 as input.

Comparison with prior works

We additionally write ∥V∥∞:=max⁡i,j∣Vij∣\lVert V\rVert_\infty:= \max_{i,j}|V_{ij}|. We summarize our results in comparison with prior work in Table 1.

AlgorithmPrivacy modelsin⁡2\sin^2-ErrorCondition
Rank kkHardt and Price [2014]EntryO~(k3σk4max⁡{n∣U∣∞2,d∣V∣∞2}ϵ2Δk3)2\widetilde{O}\left(\frac{k^3\sigma_k^4\max\{n|U|_\infty^2,d|V|_\infty^2\}}{\epsilon^2\Delta_k^3}\right)^2None
Rank kkd’Orsi and Novikov [2026]See note1^1O~(Δdn2σk2kmax⁡{n∣U∣∞2,d∣V∣∞2}ϵ2Δk2)2\widetilde{O}\left(\frac{\Delta_{dn}^2\sigma_k^2 k\max\{n|U|_\infty^2,d|V|_\infty^2\}}{\epsilon^2\Delta_k^2}\right)^2None
Rank kkDwork et al. [2014]Row-ℓ2\ell_2O~(ϵdϵ2Δk2)\widetilde{O}\left(\frac{\epsilon^d}{\epsilon^2\Delta_k^2}\right)Δk=Ω~(dϵ)\Delta_k=\widetilde{\Omega}\left(\frac{\sqrt{d}}{\epsilon}\right)
Rank kkOur algorithmRow-ℓ2\ell_2O~(dkσk2∣U∣∞2ϵ2Δk2)\widetilde{O}\left(\frac{dk\sigma_k^2|U|_\infty^2}{\epsilon^2\Delta_k^2}\right)Δk=Ω~((dϵ+(σkkϵ)2/3+(kσk2∣U∣∞2ϵ)2/3))\Delta_k=\widetilde{\Omega}\left(\left(\frac{\sqrt{d}}{\epsilon}+\left(\frac{\sigma_k\sqrt{k}}{\epsilon}\right)^{2/3}+\left(\frac{k\sigma_k^2|U|_\infty^2}{\epsilon}\right)^{2/3}\right)\right)
Rank 11Nguyen et al. [2026]Row-ℓ2\ell_2O~((min⁡{4n,dσ12+σ14Δ1+dΔ1})∣U∣∞2ϵ2Δ12)3\widetilde{O}\left(\frac{\left(\min\{4n,d\sigma_1^2+\frac{\sigma_1^4}{\Delta_1}+d\Delta_1\}\right)|U|_\infty^2}{\epsilon^2\Delta_1^2}\right)^3Δ1=Ω~((σ12∣U∣∞ϵ)2/3+(σ1ϵ)2/3)3\Delta_1=\widetilde{\Omega}\left(\left(\frac{\sigma_1^2|U|_\infty}{\epsilon}\right)^{2/3}+\left(\frac{\sigma_1}{\epsilon}\right)^{2/3}\right)^3
Rank 11Our algorithmRow-ℓ2\ell_2O~(dσ12∣U∣∞2ϵ2Δ12)\widetilde{O}\left(\frac{d\sigma_1^2|U|_\infty^2}{\epsilon^2\Delta_1^2}\right)Δ1=Ω~(dϵ+(σ12∣U∣∞ϵ)2/3+(σ1ϵ)2/3)\Delta_1=\widetilde{\Omega}\left(\frac{\sqrt{d}}{\epsilon}+\left(\frac{\sigma_1^2|U|_\infty}{\epsilon}\right)^{2/3}+\left(\frac{\sigma_1}{\epsilon}\right)^{2/3}\right)

Table 1. Comparison of deterministic rank-kk PCA guarantees. The error is ∥(I−X^X^⊤)Vk∥22=sin⁡2(θmax⁡)\|(I-\widehat{X}\widehat{X}^{\top})V_k\|_2^2=\sin^2(\theta_{\max}) where θmax⁡\theta_{\max} is the largest principal angle between the column spaces of X^\widehat{X} and VkV_k. Poly-logarithmic factors in nn, dd, 1ϵ\frac{1}{\epsilon}, 1δ\frac{1}{\delta} are suppressed. We let Δk:=σk2−σk+12\Delta_k:=\sigma_k^2-\sigma_{k+1}^2.

References

  1. [1]Maria-Florina Balcan, Simon Shaolei Du, Yining Wang, and Adams Wei Yu. An improved gap-dependency analysis of the noisy power method. In COLT, volume 49 of JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, pages 284–309. JMLR.org, 2016.
  2. [2]Avrim Blum, John Hopcroft, and Ravindran Kannan. Foundations of data science. Cambridge University Press, 2020.DOI
  3. [3]Stéphane Boucheron, Gábor Lugosi, and Pascal Massart. Concentration Inequalities: A Nonasymptotic Theory of Independence. Oxford University Press, 02 2013. ISBN 978019953255. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/978019953255.001.0001. URL https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/978019953255.001.0001.
  4. [4]Kenneth R. Davidson and Stanisław J. Szarek. Local operator theory, random matrices and banach spaces. In Handbook of the Geometry of Banach Spaces, volume 1, pages 317–366. Elsevier, 2001. doi: 10.1016/S1874-5849(01)80010-3.DOI
  5. [8]Cynthia Dwork, Krishnaram Kenthapadi, Frank McSherry, Ilya Mironov, and Moni Naor. Our data, ourselves: Privacy via distributed noise generation. In EUROCRYPT, volume 4004 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 486–503. Springer, 2006.
  6. [9]Cynthia Dwork, Kunal Talwar, Abhradeep Thakurta, and Li Zhang. Analyze Gauss: optimal bounds for privacy-preserving principal component analysis. In STOC, pages 11–20. ACM, 2014.
  7. [10]Moritz Hardt and Eric Price. The noisy power method: A meta algorithm with applications. In NIPS, pages 2861–2869, 2014.arxiv.org/abs/1311.2495
  8. [12]Moritz Hardt and Aaron Roth. Beyond worst-case analysis in private singular vector computation. In STOC, pages 331–340. ACM, 2013.arxiv.org/abs/1211.0975
  9. [14]Peter Kairouz, Sewoong Oh, and Pramod Viswanath. The composition theorem for differential privacy. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 63(6):4037–4049, 2017.arxiv.org/abs/1311.0776
  10. [16]Ilya Mironov. Rényi differential privacy. In 2017 IEEE 30th Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF), pages 263–275, 2017. doi: 10.1109/CSF.2017.11.DOI
  11. [17]Ta Duy Nguyen, Alina Ene, and Huy Le Nguyen. Adaptive power iteration method for differentially private PCA. CoRR, abs/2602.11454, 2026.arxiv.org/abs/2602.11454
  12. [18]Julien Nicolas, César Sabater, Mohamed Maouche, Sonia Ben Mokhtar, and Mark Coates. Differentially private and decentralized randomized power method, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.01931.
  13. [19]Nicolas Papernot and Thomas Steinke. Hyperparameter tuning with Rényi differential privacy. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=-7OL81pp9DF.arxiv.org/abs/2110.03620

Paper details

vlnc:W_qc7aphvx
Version
v1 · latest
Published
Fresh — added to the Hub within the last 30 days
Added
License
CC BY 4.0
Usage

views · 0

downloads · 2

A view counts once per browser per day, a download each time the PDF is requested.

  • Computer Science

generative AI tools

View statement
Looking for related papers…
Contents