We initiate an investigation of private sampling from distributions. Given a dataset with $n$ independent observations from an unknown distribution $P$, a sampling algorithm must output a single observation from a distribution that is close in total variation distance to $P$ while satisfying differential privacy. Sampling abstracts the goal of generating small amounts of realistic-looking data. We provide tight upper and lower bounds for the dataset size needed for this task for three natural families of distributions: arbitrary distributions on $\{1,\ldots ,k\}$, arbitrary product distributions on $\{0,1\}^d$, and product distributions on $\{0,1\}^d$ with bias in each coordinate bounded away from 0 and 1. We demonstrate that, in some parameter regimes, private sampling requires asymptotically fewer observations than learning a description of $P$ nonprivately; in other regimes, however, private sampling proves to be as difficult as private learning. Notably, for some classes of distributions, the overhead in the number of observations needed for private learning compared to non-private learning is completely captured by the number of observations needed for private sampling.
Hypothesis testing is one of the most common types of data analysis and forms the backbone of scientific research in many disciplines. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) in particular is used to detect dependence between a categorical and a numerical variable. Here we show how one can carry out this hypothesis test under the restrictions of differential privacy. We show that the $F$-statistic, the optimal test statistic in the public setting, is no longer optimal in the private setting, and we develop a new test statistic $F_1$ with much higher statistical power. We show how to rigorously compute a reference distribution for the $F_1$ statistic and give an algorithm that outputs accurate $p$-values. We implement our test and experimentally optimize several parameters. We then compare our test to the only previous work on private ANOVA testing, using the same effect size as that work. We see an order of magnitude improvement, with our test requiring only 7% as much data to detect the effect.