This work studies a fundamental trade-off between privacy and welfare in aggregation of privatized preferences of individuals. It presents the precise rate at which welfare decreases with increasing levels of privacy. Trade-offs in achieving privacy while maintaining accuracy or more recently in maintaining fairness have been studied so far in prior works. Social choice functions help aggregate individual preferences while differentially private mechanisms provide formal privacy guarantees to release answers of queries operating on data. However, once differential privacy inducing noise is introduced into a voting system, the deterministic social choice function used to release an aggregated choice may not be ideal anymore. It might change the power balances between the voters. It could be the case that an alternate social choice function becomes more ideal to aggregate the preferences. There could be a constraint to operate the voting system at a specific level of either privacy or influence or welfare, and one would like to know the effects on rest of the unconstrained choices. In this paper, we introduce notions of welfare and probabilistic influence of privatization mechanisms to help precisely answer such questions through the proposed results. Throughout the paper, we restrict our work to social choice functions where several voters vote for either of two candidates. We present two different ways of proving each of our results that connects privacy with welfare & probabilistic influence: i.) by using first principles from combinatorics/probability, ii.) by using Fourier analysis of Boolean functions. Finally, we analyze the accuracy of the private mechanism on various social choice functions. The results in this paper thereby help bridge two prominent fields of social choice theory and differential privacy.
翻译:这项工作研究个人私有化偏好组合的隐私与福利之间的根本权衡;它介绍了随着隐私程度的提高而福利下降的确切速度;在以前的著作中,迄今已经研究了在保持准确性的同时实现隐私的权衡或最近在维护公平方面的权衡;社会选择功能有助于综合个人偏好,而不同的私人机制则提供正式的隐私保障,以解答数据操作中的查询。然而,一旦将不同的隐私诱发噪音的差别引入投票系统,用于发布综合选择的确定性社会选择功能可能不再理想。它可能改变选民之间的权力平衡。这可能是另一种社会选择功能更理想地综合偏好的情况。在特定的隐私或影响或福利层面运作投票系统可能会受到某种限制,而人们则希望知道对未受限制的选择的其余部分的影响。在本文中,我们引入了福利概念和私有化机制的不稳定性影响,以帮助通过提议的结果准确解答这些问题。在整个文件中,我们的工作将限于社会选择功能限于由两名候选人投票的选民组成的社会选择功能。因此,我们用两种不同的方法来分析社会选择的准确性。我们用两种不同的方法来分析我们的社会精确性,最后的精确性分析我们用两种方法来分析我们的社会机制的精确性。