What Do Our Choices Say About Our Preferences?

Krzysztof Grining; Marek Klonowski; Małgorzata Sulkowska

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2005.01586

What Do Our Choices Say About Our Preferences?

Krzysztof Grining·Marek Klonowski·Małgorzata Sulkowska

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Taking online decisions is a part of everyday life. Think of buying a house, parking a car or taking part in an auction. We often take those decisions publicly, which may breach our privacy - a party observing our choices may learn a lot about our preferences. In this paper we investigate the online stopping algorithms from the privacy preserving perspective, using a mathematically rigorous differential privacy notion. In differentially private algorithms there is usually an issue of balancing the privacy and utility. In this regime, in most cases, having both optimality and high level of privacy at the same time is impossible. We propose a natural mechanism to achieve a controllable trade-off, quantified by a parameter, between the accuracy of the online algorithm and its privacy. Depending on the parameter, our mechanism can be optimal with weaker differential privacy or suboptimal, yet more privacy-preserving. We conduct a detailed accuracy and privacy analysis of our mechanism applied to the optimal algorithm for the classical secretary problem. Thereby the classical notions from two distinct areas - optimal stopping and differential privacy - meet for the first time.

Explore related subjects

cs.DS

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Krzysztof Grining, Marek Klonowski, Małgorzata Sulkowska. 2020-05-04. What Do Our Choices Say About Our Preferences?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.01586

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Quasi-Monte Carlo Beyond Hardy-Krause II: $(1 + \varepsilon)n$ Samples Suffice

Numerical integration studies how well one can estimate the integral of a function $f$ over $[0,1)^d$ using $n$ sample points. The two classical methods, Monte Carlo (MC) and quasi-Monte Carlo (QMC), have complementary strengths and weaknesses, and a fundamental question is to design an approach that combines the benefits of both. Recently, building on the transference principle in discrepancy theory, Bansal and Jiang~\cite{BJ25a} gave a randomized QMC method that bridges MC and QMC guarantees using only i.i.d.\ samples. Their method also goes beyond the classical Koksma--Hlawka inequality: it achieves integration error $\widetilde{O}_d(\sigma_{\mathsf{SO}}(f)/n)$, where the smoothed-out variation $\sigma_{\mathsf{SO}}(f)$ can be substantially smaller than the Hardy--Krause variation that governs the classical bound. However, their algorithm requires $n^2$ i.i.d.\ samples as input, and this quadratic blowup is inherent to any method based on the transference principle. In this work, we bypass the quadratic blowup: for any constant $\varepsilon > 0$, we show that $(1+\varepsilon)n$ i.i.d.\ samples suffice to both obtain the beyond-Hardy--Krause guarantee of~\cite{BJ25a}, resolving an open problem posed there, and to produce low-discrepancy point sequences. Our algorithms are variants of the online Haar-thinning method of Dwivedi, Feldheim, Gurel-Gurevich, and Ramdas~\cite{DFG+19}.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2026

A deterministic $(1+\varepsilon)^n$ approximation for the permanent of a nonnegative matrix

For every fixed $0<\varepsilon\le1$, we give a deterministic strongly polynomial algorithm that, given a nonnegative matrix $A\in\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}^{n\times n}$, returns $Q$ satisfying $\operatorname{per} A\le Q\le(1+\varepsilon)^n\operatorname{per} A$.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2026

Single-Exponential Algorithms and a Polynomial Kernel for Strong Connectivity Augmentation

Strong Connectivity Augmentation (SCA) asks whether a directed acyclic graph can be made strongly connected by adding at most $k$ prescribed links whose total weight is within a given budget. Klinkby, Misra, and Saurabh (SODA 2021) gave an $O^*(2^{O(k\log k)})$-time algorithm and asked whether the problem admits a single-exponential parameterized algorithm and a polynomial kernel. We answer both questions affirmatively: SCA can be solved in $O^*(9^k)$ time and admits a polynomial kernel with $O(k^4)$ vertices and $O(k^{16})$ bits. For unweighted SCA, we obtain $O^*(4^k)$ time and a kernel with $O(k^3)$ vertices. Our algorithms are based on a particularly simple reduction to Strongly Connected Spanning Subgraph with two edge costs.

cs.DS↗