Corrigendum

Corrigendum to “A Comprehensive Survey on Local Differential Privacy”

Table 4

Comparisons of frequency oracle mechanisms for frequency estimation under LDP.

MethodEncodeRandomnessAsymptotic bound errorCandidateCommunication costComputation costPros and cons

k-RR [35]
GRR [36]
DirectLocalKnownP: O(1)
S: O(n)
P: O(1)
S: O(n + k)
Pros: no encoding, predigest the process; lower candidate size can achieve higher utility; cons: low utility in low privacy regime
O-RR [35]Unary (bloom filter)LocalUnknownP: O(h)
S: O(nh)
P: O(k)
S: linear regression
Pros: open candidate; cons: low utility in low privacy regime, high computation cost due to regression
RAPPOR [7]Unary (bloom filter)LocalKnownP: O(h)
S: O(nh)
P: O(k)
S: LASSO and linear regression
Pros: lower error, lower storage cost, support big candidate; cons: consider bloom filter parameter settings, high computation cost due to regression
k-RAPPOR (basic one-time) [7]UnaryLocalKnownP: Θ(k)
S: O(nk)
P: O(k)
S:
Pros: lower error, lower storage overhead, simpler and faster implement; cons: consider parameter settings of bloom filter
OUE [36]UnaryLocalKnownP: Θ(k)
S: O(nk)
P: O(k)
S:
Pros: lower error, lower storage cost, lower computation cost and easier to implement; cons: larger candidate lead to higher communication cost
O-RAPPOR [35]Unary (bloom filter)LocalUnknownP: Θ(h)
S: O(nh)
P: O(k)
S: linear regression
Pros: open candidate, higher utility, lower storage overhead; cons: need consider parameter settings of bloom filter
k-Subset [41, 42]DirectLocalKnownP: Θ(k)
S: O(nk)
P: O(k)
S:
Pros: better sample complexity and higher utility; cons: higher communication and computation cost due to set output
RMP(SHist) [37]BinaryPublic (shared matrix)KnownP: O(1)
S: O(n)
P: O(k)
S: O(nk)
Pros: lower communication cost; cons: Unstable query accuracy due to the noise from RMP matric
HRR [10, 38]BinaryPublic (shared matrix)KnownP: O(1)
S: O(n)
P: O(k)
S: O(nk)
Pros: lower communication cost; cons: unable query accuracy due to the noise from RMP matric
BLH [36]BinaryLocal and publicKnownP: O(1)
S: Θ(log(n))
P: O(k)
S: O(nk)
Pros: lower communication cost; cons: higher computation overhead due to the Hashing
OLH [36]BinaryLocal and publicUnknownP: O(1)
S: Θ(log(n))
P: O(k)
S: O(nk)
Pros: higher utility in the setting big candidate size, lower communication cost; cons: higher computation overhead due to the Hashing
HR [39]BinaryLocalKnownP: O(log(k))
S: (O(nlog(k))
P: O(k)
S: O(n+k)
Pros: obtain efficient computation complexity due to fast walsh-hadamard transform; cons: unstable accuracy due to the noise from encoding