Differentially Private Auditing Under Strategic Response
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Regulatory audits of AI systems increasingly rely on differential privacy (DP) to protect training data and model internals. We study audit design when the audited developer can strategically respond to the privacy-constrained audit interface. We formalize privacy-constrained auditing as a bilevel Stackelberg game, in which an auditor commits to a query policy and DP budget allocation across harm dimensions, and a strategic developer reallocates mitigation efforts in response. We introduce the welfare-weighted under-detection gap Bw, the welfare-weighted true residual harm the audit fails to detect at the developer's strategic best response, and prove that naive DP auditing (uniform or harm-proportional allocation) induces a strictly larger Bw than any non-strategic mitigation baseline whenever effective detectability is heterogeneous, the welfare weights are not comonotone with detectability, and the developer's optimum is interior. We characterize the optimal auditor allocation as a four-factor balance of welfare weight, audit miss-probability, detectability elasticity, and mitigation-cost curvature, and provide a single-level reformulation of the bilevel problem via the developer's KKT system. We propose Strategic Private Audit Design (SPAD), a projected-gradient algorithm with hypergradients computed through the developer's best response.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 39 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 May 2026.
Builds on
23 of 39 references.
References · 23
- 2023Extracting Training Data from Diffusion Modelscited by 723
- 2017Renyi Differential Privacycited by 643
- 2020Performative Predictioncited by 318
- 2015Strategic Classificationcited by 256
- 2019MemGuard: Defending against Black-Box Membership Inference Attacks via Adversarial Examplescited by 183
- 2023How to DP-fy ML: A Practical Guide to Machine Learning with Differential Privacycited by 150
- 2017Strategic Classification from Revealed Preferencescited by 126
- 2019Deep Learning with Gaussian Differential Privacycited by 112
- 2015Algorithmic Stability for Adaptive Data Analysiscited by 88
- 2018Private Selection from Private Candidatescited by 75
- 2020Local and Central Differential Privacy for Robustness and Privacy in Federated Learningcited by 72
- 2022Geographic Spines in the 2020 Census Disclosure Avoidance Systemcited by 42
11 more
- 2018Concentrated Differentially Private Gradient Descent with Adaptive per-Iteration Privacy Budgetcited by 31
- 2018Strategyproof Linear Regression in High Dimensionscited by 22
- 2017Heavy Hitters and the Structure of Local Privacycited by 20
- 2024From Transparency to Accountability and Back: A Discussion of Access and Evidence in AI Auditingcited by 15
- 2014Stackelberg vs. Nash in Security Games: An Extended Investigation of Interchangeability, Equivalence, and Uniquenesscited by 11
- 2023DP-Auditorium: a Large Scale Library for Auditing Differential Privacycited by 11
- 2014Privacy Games: Optimal User-Centric Data Obfuscationcited by 7
- 2025The Accountability Paradox: How Platform API Restrictions Undermine AI Transparency Mandatescited by 7
- 2014Audit Games with Multiple Defender Resourcescited by 4
- 2024A Game-Theoretic Analysis of Auditing Differentially Private Algorithms with Epistemically Disparate Herdcited by 3
- 2026Co-designing for Compliance: Multi-party Computation Protocols for Post-Market Fairness Monitoring in Algorithmic Hiringcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
- 2026Strategic Classification Has a Missing Lever: Audit Riskcited by 0
- 2026Strategic Classification Has a Missing Lever: Audit Risk18 Sep 2026