Author name cluster

Ryan Rogers

Possible papers associated with this exact author name in Arrow. This page groups case-insensitive exact name matches and is not a full identity disambiguation profile.

4 papers

1 author row

NeurIPS Conference 2019 Conference Paper

Practical Differentially Private Top-k Selection with Pay-what-you-get Composition

David Durfee
Ryan Rogers

We study the problem of top-k selection over a large domain universe subject to user-level differential privacy. Typically, the exponential mechanism or report noisy max are the algorithms used to solve this problem. However, these algorithms require querying the database for the count of each domain element. We focus on the setting where the data domain is unknown, which is different than the setting of frequent itemsets where an apriori type algorithm can help prune the space of domain elements to query. We design algorithms that ensures (approximate) differential privacy and only needs access to the true top-k' elements from the data for any chosen k' ≥ k. This is a highly desirable feature for making differential privacy practical, since the algorithms require no knowledge of the domain. We consider both the setting where a user's data can modify an arbitrary number of counts by at most 1, i. e. unrestricted sensitivity, and the setting where a user's data can modify at most some small, fixed number of counts by at most 1, i. e. restricted sensitivity. Additionally, we provide a pay-what-you-get privacy composition bound for our algorithms. That is, our algorithms might return fewer than k elements when the top-k elements are queried, but the overall privacy budget only decreases by the size of the outcome set.

PDF Details

NeurIPS Conference 2017 Conference Paper

A Decomposition of Forecast Error in Prediction Markets

Miro Dudik
Sebastien Lahaie
Ryan Rogers
Jennifer Wortman Vaughan

We analyze sources of error in prediction market forecasts in order to bound the difference between a security's price and the ground truth it estimates. We consider cost-function-based prediction markets in which an automated market maker adjusts security prices according to the history of trade. We decompose the forecasting error into three components: sampling error, arising because traders only possess noisy estimates of ground truth; market-maker bias, resulting from the use of a particular market maker (i. e. , cost function) to facilitate trade; and convergence error, arising because, at any point in time, market prices may still be in flux. Our goal is to make explicit the tradeoffs between these error components, influenced by design decisions such as the functional form of the cost function and the amount of liquidity in the market. We consider a specific model in which traders have exponential utility and exponential-family beliefs representing noisy estimates of ground truth. In this setting, sampling error vanishes as the number of traders grows, but there is a tradeoff between the other two components. We provide both upper and lower bounds on market-maker bias and convergence error, and demonstrate via numerical simulations that these bounds are tight. Our results yield new insights into the question of how to set the market's liquidity parameter and into the forecasting benefits of enforcing coherent prices across securities.

PDF Details

NeurIPS Conference 2016 Conference Paper

Learning from Rational Behavior: Predicting Solutions to Unknown Linear Programs

Shahin Jabbari
Ryan Rogers
Aaron Roth
Steven Wu

We define and study the problem of predicting the solution to a linear program (LP) given only partial information about its objective and constraints. This generalizes the problem of learning to predict the purchasing behavior of a rational agent who has an unknown objective function, that has been studied under the name “Learning from Revealed Preferences". We give mistake bound learning algorithms in two settings: in the first, the objective of the LP is known to the learner but there is an arbitrary, fixed set of constraints which are unknown. Each example is defined by an additional known constraint and the goal of the learner is to predict the optimal solution of the LP given the union of the known and unknown constraints. This models the problem of predicting the behavior of a rational agent whose goals are known, but whose resources are unknown. In the second setting, the objective of the LP is unknown, and changing in a controlled way. The constraints of the LP may also change every day, but are known. An example is given by a set of constraints and partial information about the objective, and the task of the learner is again to predict the optimal solution of the partially known LP.

PDF Details

NeurIPS Conference 2016 Conference Paper

Privacy Odometers and Filters: Pay-as-you-Go Composition

Ryan Rogers
Aaron Roth
Jonathan Ullman
Salil Vadhan

In this paper we initiate the study of adaptive composition in differential privacy when the length of the composition, and the privacy parameters themselves can be chosen adaptively, as a function of the outcome of previously run analyses. This case is much more delicate than the setting covered by existing composition theorems, in which the algorithms themselves can be chosen adaptively, but the privacy parameters must be fixed up front. Indeed, it isn't even clear how to define differential privacy in the adaptive parameter setting. We proceed by defining two objects which cover the two main use cases of composition theorems. A privacy filter is a stopping time rule that allows an analyst to halt a computation before his pre-specified privacy budget is exceeded. A privacy odometer allows the analyst to track realized privacy loss as he goes, without needing to pre-specify a privacy budget. We show that unlike the case in which privacy parameters are fixed, in the adaptive parameter setting, these two use cases are distinct. We show that there exist privacy filters with bounds comparable (up to constants) with existing privacy composition theorems. We also give a privacy odometer that nearly matches non-adaptive private composition theorems, but is sometimes worse by a small asymptotic factor. Moreover, we show that this is inherent, and that any valid privacy odometer in the adaptive parameter setting must lose this factor, which shows a formal separation between the filter and odometer use-cases.

PDF Details