You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
A central problem in differentially private data analysis is how to design efficient algorithms capable of answering large numbers of counting queries on a sensitive database. Counting queries of the form "What fraction of individual records in the database satisfy the property q?" We prove that if one-way functions exist, then there is no algorithm that takes as input a database D in ( 0,1 ^d)^n, and k = n^ 2+o(1) arbitrary efficiently computable counting queries, runs in time poly(d, n), and returns an approximate answer to each query, while satisfying differential privacy. We also consider the complexity of answering "simple" counting queries, and make some progress in this direction by showing that the above result holds even when we require that the queries are computable by constant depth (AC-0) circuits. Our result is almost tight in the sense that nearly n^2 counting queries can be answered efficiently while satisfying differential privacy. Moreover, super-polynomially many queries can be answered in exponential time. We prove our results by extending the connection between differentially private counting query release and cryptographic traitor-tracing schemes to the setting where the queries are given to the sanitizer as input, and by constructing a traitor-tracing scheme that is secure in this setting.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: We initiate the study of "privacy for the analyst" in differentially private data analysis. That is, not only will we be concerned with ensuring differential privacy for the data (i.e. individuals or customers), which are the usual concern of differential privacy, but we also consider (differential) privacy for the set of queries posed by each data analyst. The goal is to achieve privacy with respect to other analysts, or users of the system. This problem arises only in the context of stateful privacy mechanisms, in which the responses to queries depend on other queries posed (a recent wave of results in the area utilized cleverly coordinated noise and state in order to allow answering privately hugely many queries). We argue that the problem is real by proving an exponential gap between the number of queries that can be answered (with non-trivial error) by stateless and stateful differentially private mechanisms. We then give a stateful algorithm for differentially private data analysis that also ensures differential privacy for the analyst and can answer exponentially many queries.
Finally, Dwork, Naor, and Vadhan [1] gave information-theoretic lower bounds for , which take @math queries as input, but whose answers to each query do not depend on the other @math input queries. They showed that (even computationally unbounded) stateless sanitizers can answer at most @math queries with non-trivial accuracy, while satisfying differential privacy. The Laplace Mechanism is a stateless sanitizer that answers @math queries, and thus their result is tight in this respect. Although their result is information theoretic, and considers a highly restricted type of sanitizer, their techniques are related to ours. We elaborate on this connection in the appendix.