Private Equilibrium Release, Large Games, and No-Regret Learning

We give mechanisms in which each of n players in a game is given their component of an (approximate) equilibrium in a way that guarantees differential privacy — that is, the revelation of the equilibrium components does not reveal too much information about the utilities of other players. More precisely, we show how to compute an approximate correlated equilibrium (CE) under the constraint of differential privacy (DP), provided n is large and any player’s action affects any other’s payoff by at most a small amount. Our results draw interesting connections between noisy generalizations of classical convergence results for no-regret learning, and the noisy mechanisms developed for differential privacy. Our results imply the ability to truthfully implement good social-welfare solutions in many games, such as games with small Price of Anarchy, even if the mechanism does not have the ability to enforce outcomes. We give two different mechanisms for DP computation of approximate CE. The first is computationally efficient, but has a suboptimal dependence on the number of actions in the game; the second is computationally inefficient, but allows for games with exponentially many actions. We also give a matching lower bound, showing that our results are tight up to logarithmic factors. ∗We gratefully acknowledge the support of NSF Grant CCF-1101389. We thank Nabil Al-Najjar, Eduardo Azevdeo, Tymofiy Mylovanov, Andy Postlewaite, Al Roth and Tim Roughgarden for helpful comments and discussions. †Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania. Email:mkearns@cis.upenn.edu. ‡Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania. Email:mallesh@econ.upenn.edu. §Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania. Email:aaroth@cis.upenn.edu. ¶School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University. Email:jullman@seas.harvard.edu.

[1]  Aaron Roth,et al.  The Algorithmic Foundations of Differential Privacy , 2014, Found. Trends Theor. Comput. Sci..

[2]  David Xiao,et al.  Is privacy compatible with truthfulness? , 2013, ITCS '13.

[3]  Stephen Chong,et al.  Truthful Mechanisms for Agents That Value Privacy , 2011, EC.

[4]  T. Roughgarden,et al.  Intrinsic robustness of the price of anarchy , 2012, Commun. ACM.

[5]  Eric Budish,et al.  Strategyproofness in the large as a desideratum for market design , 2012, EC '12.

[6]  Aaron Roth,et al.  Buying private data at auction: the sensitive surveyor's problem , 2012, SECO.

[7]  Yu-Han Lyu,et al.  Approximately optimal auctions for selling privacy when costs are correlated with data , 2012, EC '12.

[8]  Sampath Kannan,et al.  The Exponential Mechanism for Social Welfare: Private, Truthful, and Nearly Optimal , 2012, 2012 IEEE 53rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[9]  Aaron Roth,et al.  Conducting truthful surveys, cheaply , 2012, EC '12.

[10]  Aaron Roth,et al.  Take It or Leave It: Running a Survey When Privacy Comes at a Cost , 2012, WINE.

[11]  Kobbi Nissim,et al.  Privacy-aware mechanism design , 2011, EC '12.

[12]  Aaron Roth,et al.  Iterative Constructions and Private Data Release , 2011, TCC.

[13]  Anindya De,et al.  Lower Bounds in Differential Privacy , 2011, TCC.

[14]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  Approximately optimal mechanism design via differential privacy , 2010, ITCS '12.

[15]  Aaron Roth,et al.  Selling privacy at auction , 2010, EC '11.

[16]  Aaron Roth,et al.  Privately releasing conjunctions and the statistical query barrier , 2010, STOC '11.

[17]  Parag A. Pathak,et al.  Matching with Couples: Stability and Incentives in Large Markets , 2010 .

[18]  Guy N. Rothblum,et al.  A Multiplicative Weights Mechanism for Privacy-Preserving Data Analysis , 2010, 2010 IEEE 51st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[19]  Guy N. Rothblum,et al.  Boosting and Differential Privacy , 2010, 2010 IEEE 51st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[20]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  Algorithmic Game Theory , 2007 .

[21]  Omer Reingold,et al.  Partial exposure in large games , 2010, Games Econ. Behav..

[22]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  Interactive privacy via the median mechanism , 2009, STOC '10.

[23]  Cynthia Dwork,et al.  New Efficient Attacks on Statistical Disclosure Control Mechanisms , 2008, CRYPTO.

[24]  Omer Reingold,et al.  Fault tolerance in large games , 2008, EC '08.

[25]  A. Blum,et al.  A learning theory approach to non-interactive database privacy , 2008, STOC.

[26]  Mohammad Taghi Hajiaghayi,et al.  Regret minimization and the price of total anarchy , 2008, STOC.

[27]  Cynthia Dwork,et al.  Differential Privacy: A Survey of Results , 2008, TAMC.

[28]  Kunal Talwar,et al.  Mechanism Design via Differential Privacy , 2007, 48th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS'07).

[29]  Cynthia Dwork,et al.  The price of privacy and the limits of LP decoding , 2007, STOC '07.

[30]  Parag A. Pathak,et al.  Incentives and Stability in Large Two-Sided Matching Markets , 2007 .

[31]  Moni Naor,et al.  Our Data, Ourselves: Privacy Via Distributed Noise Generation , 2006, EUROCRYPT.

[32]  Cynthia Dwork,et al.  Calibrating Noise to Sensitivity in Private Data Analysis , 2006, TCC.

[33]  Nicole Immorlica,et al.  Marriage, honesty, and stability , 2005, SODA '05.

[34]  E. Kalai Large Robust Games , 2004 .

[35]  Irit Dinur,et al.  Revealing information while preserving privacy , 2003, PODS.

[36]  Rann Smorodinsky,et al.  Pivotal Players and the Characterization of Influence , 2000, J. Econ. Theory.

[37]  S. Hart,et al.  A simple adaptive procedure leading to correlated equilibrium , 2000 .

[38]  Dean P. Foster,et al.  Calibrated Learning and Correlated Equilibrium , 1997 .

[39]  A. Roth,et al.  Jumping the Gun: Imperfections and Institutions Related to the Timing of Market Transactions , 1994 .

[40]  D. J. Roberts,et al.  THE INCENTIVES FOR PRICE-TAKING BEHAVIOR IN LARGE EXCHANGE ECONOMIES , 1976 .

[41]  R. Yeazell Marriage , 1955, Patricia Neal.