When Privacy Moves ML-Mediated Decisions On Device: Information and Incentive Misalignment in Auctions
cs.GT, cs.DC, cs.LG
Submitted: 2026-09-27
Updated: 2026-09-27
Comments: 14 pages, 1 figure, 3 tables. Previously submitted to the Economics for Machine Learning (EconML) workshop at NeurIPS 2026. Code and data: https://github.com/sarkar-dipankar/on-device-auction-audit
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
The gist: Moving ML-mediated decision making onto privacy-preserving clients decentralises the economic decision along with the inference.
Terminology
Abstract
Moving ML-mediated decision making onto privacy-preserving clients decentralises the economic decision along with the inference. Shared budget constraints then depend on information that cannot be globally current, creating an information-structure failure that conventional pacing is not designed to solve. We study this information misalignment in an auction-logic-faithful on-device simulation with 36 campaigns and 50 devices. Accounting is in dimensionless integer score units; no currency semantics are claimed. Across 30 paired demand paths, proportional Even pacing overspends 17.77% after one tick of staleness and 1,669.31% after 50 ticks under the original 20-times budget pressure. The effect does not depend on that severe a budget: at two-times pressure, 50-tick overspend remains 106.95%. A visible-budget no-sale guard makes zero-lag compliance exact at this score-unit granularity, yet leaves 11.88% overspend at one tick because other devices' debits remain invisible. A declared bursty, heterogeneous-device sweep retains a strictly increasing mean lag curve. We derive a finite-window expected excess-debit bound under conditional charge caps and find positive paired slack in every bounded-value cell. A second, incentive misalignment arises when the ML/pacing score transformation is allowed to change payment units: 98.23% of rival auctions at one tick admit a profitable deviation. An executable implementation-level counterexample isolates the runner-up's multiplier in the winner's price. Critical-base-bid payment is per-auction DSIC conditional on current multipliers, but does not establish dynamic truthfulness and does not repair base-value ranking disagreement.
Sources
- Real Time Bid Optimization with Smooth Budget Delivery in Online Advertising
- Smart Pacing for Effective Online Ad Campaign Optimization
- Budget Pacing in Repeated Auctions: Regret and Efficiency without Convergence
- Online Learning under Delayed Feedback
- WildChat: 1M ChatGPT Interaction Logs in the Wild
- gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Card
- Real-Time Bidding Benchmarking with iPinYou Dataset
Related papers
- Exact Regret Frontiers and Externality Scheduling in Centralized Serial-Dictatorship Bandits
- In-Context Credit Assignment via the Core
- Optimal Regret for Online Market Making with Limit Order Book
- Breaking 1/epsilon Barrier in Quantum Zero-Sum Games: Generalizing Metric Subregularity for Spectraplexes
- Enhancing Affine Maximizer Auctions with Correlation-Aware Payment
- LLM Bidders Preserve the Mechanism-Level Orderings of Human Bidders