This work studies how precise central differential privacy and local differential privacy can be for common voting rules, including Plurality, Condorcet, Maximin, Plurality with Runoff, and Single Transferable Vote, and proves upper bounds on the required margin for these algorithms.
Abstract
Differential privacy protects individual voting records by injecting randomness into the published outcome, but this noise can lead to erroneous results when an election is close. We study how precise central differential privacy and local differential privacy can be for common voting rules, including Plurality, Condorcet, Maximin, Plurality with Runoff, and Single Transferable Vote (STV). Our measure of precision is the margin of victory needed for a private mechanism to return the same winner as the non-private rule with high probability. We give private algorithms for publishing the winner and prove upper bounds on the required margin for these algorithms. We also prove lower bounds showing that nontrivial margins are necessary; many of these bounds match the corresponding upper bounds up to logarithmic factors. For STV, an information-theoretic upper bound matches the lower bound, but we prove that this guarantee cannot be achieved in polynomial time unless NP $\subseteq$ BPP. This gives a rare example of a computationally tractable task that becomes intractable when one simultaneously requires differential privacy and utility.
The findings suggest that the inferential privacy guarantees provided by differentially private mechanisms may be substantially stronger in practice than what is implied by the theoretical upper limit.
Jan Reiter Sørensen, H. S. Christensen, Rasmus Rask Kragh Jørgensen et al.· 0 citations
Together, these results give a substitution map for privacy accounting: when Poisson-based computations remain sound for structured participation, where they fail, and what sound alternatives cost in deployment.
Private Inference-Time Pessimism (PrivITP) is introduced, which combines $\chi^2$-regularized rejection sampling with a two-phase Gaussian mechanism, and achieves ex-post $(\epsilon,\delta)$-DP with a privacy cost independent of the number of responses, cleanly decouples the regularization parameter from the privacy pa...
I. Jain, Nandini Bhattad, Sayak Ray Chowdhury· 0 citations
Liquid democracy permits voters to vote directly or delegate their votes to others. Existing algorithmic analyses assign each voter a single scalar parameter, interpreted as an independent probability of voting for the ground truth. This representation is inadequate when delegation is fixed before public information ch...
Seth Gilbert, Stefan Schmid, Santiago Schnell et al.· 0 citations
We study approval-based multi-winner elections with Justified Representation (JR) when voters strategically report their ballots. We prove that there does not exist a strategy-proof mechanism that outputs JR committees, even when the mechanism can be randomized and only Ex-Ante strategyproofness is required. The imposs...
The main contribution is to show how stability with respect to a random D can be used to bound distortion, and to show how stability with respect to a random D can be used to bound distortion.
Nisarg Shah· 1 citation· ⚡1
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.