Quadratic Privacy-Signaling Games and Payoff Dominant Equilibria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider a privacy-signaling game problem in which a transmitter with privacy concerns and a receiver, which does not pay attention to these privacy concerns, communicate. In this communication scenario, the transmitter observes a pair of correlated random variables which are modeled as jointly Gaussian. The transmitter constructs its message based on these random variables with the aim to hide one of them and convey the other one. In contrast, the objective of the receiver is to accurately estimate both of the random variables so as to gather as much information as possible. These conflicting objectives are analyzed in a game theoretic framework where depending on the commitment conditions (of the sender), we consider Nash or Stackelberg equilibria. We show that a payoff dominant (i.e., most desirable for both players) Nash equilibrium is attained by affine policies and we explicitly characterize these policies. In addition, the strategies at the characterized Nash equilibrium is shown to form also a Stackelberg equilibrium. Furthermore, we show that there always exists an informative Stackelberg equilibrium for the multidimensional parameter setup. We also revisit the information bottleneck problem within our Stackelberg framework under the mean squared error distortion criterion where the information bottleneck setup has a further restriction that only one of the parameters is observed at the sender. We fully characterize the Stackelberg equilibria under certain conditions and when these conditions are not met we establish the existence of informative equilibria.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".