Code review is a crucial step in ensuring the quality and maintainability of software systems. However, this process can be time-consuming and resource-intensive, especially in large-scale projects where a significant number of code changes are submitted every day. Fortunately, not all code changes require human reviews, as some may only contain syntactic modifications that do not alter the behavior of the system, such as format changes, variable / function renamings, and constant extractions.

Differential privacy has become a de facto standard for releasing data in a privacy-preserving way. Creating a differentially private algorithm is a process that often starts with a noise-free (non-private) algorithm. The designer then decides where to add noise, and how much of it to add. This can be a non-trivial process -- if not done carefully, the algorithm might either violate differential privacy or have low utility.

In practice, differentially private data releases are designed to support a variety of applications. A data release is fit for use if it meets target accuracy requirements for each application. In this paper, we consider the problem of answering linear queries under differential privacy subject to per-query accuracy constraints. Existing practical frameworks like the matrix mechanism do not provide such fine-grained control (they optimize total error, which allows some query answers to be more accurate than necessary, at the expense of other queries that become no longer useful). Thus, we design a fitness-for-use strategy that adds privacy-preserving Gaussian noise to query answers. The covariance structure of the noise is optimized to meet the fine-grained accuracy requirements while minimizing the cost to privacy.

We propose CheckDP, an automated and integrated approach for proving or disproving claims that a mechanism is differentially private. CheckDP can find counterexamples for mechanisms with subtle bugs for which prior counterexample generators have failed. Furthermore, it was able to automatically generate proofs for correct mechanisms for which no formal verification was reported before. CheckDP is built on static program analysis, allowing it to be more efficient and precise in catching infrequent events than sampling based counterexample generators (which run mechanisms hundreds of thousands of times to estimate their output distribution). Moreover, its sound approach also allows automatic verification of correct mechanisms. When evaluated on standard benchmarks and newer privacy mechanisms, CheckDP generates proofs (for correct mechanisms) and counterexamples (for incorrect mechanisms) within 70 seconds without any false positives or false negatives.

Recent work on formal verification of differential privacy shows a trend toward usability and expressiveness -- generating a correctness proof of sophisticated algorithm while minimizing the annotation burden on programmers. Sometimes, combining those two requires substantial changes to program logics: one recent paper is able to verify Report Noisy Max automatically, but it involves a complex verification system using customized program logics and verifiers.

Noisy Max and Sparse Vector are selection algorithms for differential privacy and serve as building blocks for more complex algorithms. In this paper we show that both algorithms can release additional information for free (i.e., at no additional privacy cost). Noisy Max is used to return the approximate maximizer among a set of queries. We show that it can also release for free the noisy gap between the approximate maximizer and runner-up. This free information can improve the accuracy of certain subsequent counting queries by up to 50%. Sparse Vector is used to return a set of queries that are approximately larger than a fixed threshold. We show that it can adaptively control its privacy budget (use less budget for queries that are likely to be much larger than the threshold) in order to increase the amount of queries it can process. These results follow from a careful privacy analysis.

The widespread acceptance of differential privacy has led to the publication of many sophisticated algorithms for protecting privacy. However, due to the subtle nature of this privacy definition, many such algorithms have bugs that make them violate their claimed privacy. In this paper, we consider the problem of producing counterexamples for such incorrect algorithms. The counterexamples are designed to be short and human-understandable so that the counterexample generator can be used in the development process -- a developer could quickly explore variations of an algorithm and investigate where they break down. Our approach is statistical in nature. It runs a candidate algorithm many times and uses statistical tests to try to detect violations of differential privacy. An evaluation on a variety of incorrect published algorithms validates the usefulness of our approach: it correctly rejects incorrect algorithms and provides counterexamples for them within a few seconds.