IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2112.10812.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Contextually Private Mechanisms

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas Haupt
  • Zoe Hitzig

Abstract

We introduce a framework for comparing the privacy of different mechanisms. A mechanism designer employs a dynamic protocol to elicit agents' private information. Protocols produce a set of contextual privacy violations -- information learned about agents that may be superfluous given the context. A protocol is maximally contextually private if there is no protocol that produces a subset of the violations it produces, while still implementing the choice rule. We show that selecting a maximally contextually private protocol involves a deliberate decision about whose privacy is most important to protect, and these protocols delay questions to those they aim to protect. Taking the second-price auction rule as an instructive example, we derive two novel designs that are maximally contextually private: the ascending-join and overdescending-join protocols.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas Haupt & Zoe Hitzig, 2021. "Contextually Private Mechanisms," Papers 2112.10812, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2112.10812
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.10812
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mohammad Akbarpour & Shengwu Li, 2020. "Credible Auctions: A Trilemma," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(2), pages 425-467, March.
    2. Mark A. Satterthwaite & Hugo Sonnenschein, 1981. "Strategy-Proof Allocation Mechanisms at Differentiable Points," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 48(4), pages 587-597.
    3. Paul Milgrom & Ilya Segal, 2020. "Clock Auctions and Radio Spectrum Reallocation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(1), pages 1-31.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ran Canetti & Amos Fiat & Yannai A. Gonczarowski, 2023. "Zero-Knowledge Mechanisms," Papers 2302.05590, arXiv.org.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Markus Möller, 2024. "Transparent Matching Mechanisms," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 306, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    2. Alexander Teytelboym & Shengwu Li & Scott Duke Kominers & Mohammad Akbarpour & Piotr Dworczak, 2021. "Discovering Auctions: Contributions of Paul Milgrom and Robert Wilson," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 123(3), pages 709-750, July.
    3. Pycia, Marek & Ãœnver, M. Utku, 2020. "Arrovian Efficiency and Auditability in the Allocation of Discrete Resources," CEPR Discussion Papers 15377, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Mackenzie, Andrew & Zhou, Yu, 2022. "Menu mechanisms," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    5. Loertscher, Simon & Marx, Leslie M., 2020. "Asymptotically optimal prior-free clock auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    6. Aram Grigoryan & Markus Moller, 2024. "Robust Market Design with Opaque Announcements," Papers 2408.04509, arXiv.org.
    7. Takuma Wakayama, 2017. "Bribe-proofness for single-peaked preferences: characterizations and maximality-of-domains results," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(2), pages 357-385, August.
    8. Erlanson, Albin & Szwagrzak, Karol, 2013. "Strategy-Proof Package Assignment," Working Papers 2013:43, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    9. Felipe Arteaga & Adam J Kapor & Christopher A Neilson & Seth D Zimmerman, 2022. "Smart Matching Platforms and Heterogeneous Beliefs in Centralized School Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 137(3), pages 1791-1848.
    10. Chen, Yi-Chun & Mueller-Frank, Manuel & Pai, Mallesh M., 2022. "Continuous implementation with direct revelation mechanisms," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    11. Mizukami, Hideki & Saijo, Tatsuyoshi & Wakayama, Takuma, 2003. "Strategy-Proof Sharing," Working Papers 1170, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
    12. Takamiya, Koji, 2001. "Coalition strategy-proofness and monotonicity in Shapley-Scarf housing markets," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 201-213, March.
    13. Tsuyoshi Adachi & Takumi Kongo, 2013. "First-price auctions on general preference domains: axiomatic characterizations," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 1(1), pages 93-103, May.
    14. Leroux, Justin, 2004. "Pooling Private Technologies: Improving upon Autarky," Working Papers 2004-08, Rice University, Department of Economics.
    15. Afacan, Mustafa Og̃uz & Dur, Umut Mert, 2017. "When preference misreporting is Harm[less]ful?," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 16-24.
    16. Triossi, Matteo, 2005. "Implementation with state dependent feasible sets and preferences: a renegotiation approach," UC3M Working papers. Economics we057136, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    17. Fang-Fang Tang & Yongsheng Xu, 2021. "Corruption in Organizations: Some General Formulations and (In-)Corruptibility Results," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 49-57, December.
    18. Kiho Yoon, 2021. "Robust double auction mechanisms," Papers 2102.00669, arXiv.org, revised May 2022.
    19. Kevin Leyton-Brown & Paul Milgrom & Neil Newman & Ilya Segal, 2024. "Artificial Intelligence and Market Design: Lessons Learned from Radio Spectrum Reallocation," NBER Chapters, in: New Directions in Market Design, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Michel Breton & Vera Zaporozhets, 2009. "On the equivalence of coalitional and individual strategy-proofness properties," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(2), pages 287-309, August.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2112.10812. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.