Analysis of Privacy Loss in Distributed Constraint Optimization

Distributed Constraint Optimization (DCOP) is rapidly emerging as a prominent technique for multi agent coordination. However, despite agent privacy being a key motivation for applying DCOPs in many applications, rigorous quantitative evaluations of privacy loss in DCOP algorithms have been lacking. Recently, [Maheswaran et al. 2005] introduced a framework for quantitative evaluations of privacy in DCOP algorithms, showing that some DCOP algorithms lose more privacy than purely centralized approaches and questioning the motivation for applying DCOPs. This paper addresses the question of whether state-of-the art DCOP algorithms suffer from a similar shortcoming by investigating several of the most efficient DCOP algorithms, including both DPOP and ADOPT. Furthermore, while previous work investigated the impact on efficiency of distributed contraint reasoning design decisions (e.g. constraint-graph topology, asynchrony, message-contents), this paper examines the privacy aspect of such decisions, providing an improved understanding of privacy-efficiency tradeoffs.

[1]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Valuations of Possible States (VPS): a quantitative framework for analysis of privacy loss among collaborative personal assistant agents , 2005, AAMAS '05.

[2]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Taking DCOP to the real world: efficient complete solutions for distributed multi-event scheduling , 2004, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004..

[3]  Xavier Défago,et al.  Agent-based approach to dynamic meeting scheduling problems , 2004, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004..

[4]  Eugene C. Freuder,et al.  Constraint-based reasoning and privacy/efficiency tradeoffs in multi-agent problem solving , 2005, Artif. Intell..

[5]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  Distributed Partial Constraint Satisfaction Problem , 1997, CP.

[6]  Francesca Rossi,et al.  Multi-agent meeting scheduling with preferences: efficiency, privacy loss, and solution quality , 2002 .

[7]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  Secure Distributed Constraint Satisfaction: Reaching Agreement without Revealing Private Information , 2002, CP.

[8]  Francesca Rossi,et al.  Multi‐Agent Constraint Systems with Preferences: Efficiency, Solution Quality, and Privacy Loss , 2004, Comput. Intell..

[9]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  Adopt: asynchronous distributed constraint optimization with quality guarantees , 2005, Artif. Intell..

[10]  Manuela M. Veloso,et al.  Bumping strategies for the multiagent agreement problem , 2005, AAMAS '05.

[11]  Boi Faltings,et al.  A Scalable Method for Multiagent Constraint Optimization , 2005, IJCAI.

[12]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Privacy Loss in Distributed Constraint Reasoning: A Quantitative Framework for Analysis and its Applications , 2006, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[13]  Marius-Calin Silaghi Meeting Scheduling Guaranteeing n/2-Privacy and Resistant to Statistical Analysis (Applicable to any DisCSP) , 2004, IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence (WI'04).

[14]  Amnon Meisels,et al.  Using additional information in DisCSPs search , 2004 .