Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Shuffle and Joint Differential Privacy for Generalized Linear Contextual Bandits

Sahasrajit Sarmasarkar

TL;DR

This work introduces the first algorithms for generalized linear contextual bandits under shuffle differential privacy and joint differential privacy. It tackles three core challenges: private optimization without closed-form estimators, continual noisy updates to design matrices, and privacy-preserving handling of policy switches. The shuffle-DP algorithm achieves $\tilde{O}(d^{3/2}\sqrt{T}/\sqrt{\varepsilon})$ regret under stochastic contexts, while the JDP algorithm achieves $\tilde{O}(d\sqrt{T}/\sqrt{\varepsilon})$ under adversarial contexts, both with leading terms free of the potentially exponential instance parameter $\kappa$ and without spectral assumptions on context distributions. The results bridge a gap between private linear bandits and private GLMs, demonstrating practical DP applicability in GLM-based contextual decision tasks and offering a framework for future tightening of DP-regret tradeoffs. The work combines private convex optimization via shuffle mechanisms, batched and binary-tree release strategies, and novel privacy analyses of policy-switching, contributing to both theory and potential real-world deployments where sensitive contextual data must remain private.

Abstract

We present the first algorithms for generalized linear contextual bandits under shuffle differential privacy and joint differential privacy. While prior work on private contextual bandits has been restricted to linear reward models -- which admit closed-form estimators -- generalized linear models (GLMs) pose fundamental new challenges: no closed-form estimator exists, requiring private convex optimization; privacy must be tracked across multiple evolving design matrices; and optimization error must be explicitly incorporated into regret analysis. We address these challenges under two privacy models and context settings. For stochastic contexts, we design a shuffle-DP algorithm achieving $\tilde{O}(d^{3/2}\sqrt{T}/\sqrt{\varepsilon})$ regret. For adversarial contexts, we provide a joint-DP algorithm with $\tilde{O}(d\sqrt{T}/\sqrt{\varepsilon})$ regret -- matching the non-private rate up to a $1/\sqrt{\varepsilon}$ factor. Both algorithms remove dependence on the instance-specific parameter $κ$ (which can be exponential in dimension) from the dominant $\sqrt{T}$ term. Unlike prior work on locally private GLM bandits, our methods require no spectral assumptions on the context distribution beyond $\ell_2$ boundedness.

Shuffle and Joint Differential Privacy for Generalized Linear Contextual Bandits

TL;DR

This work introduces the first algorithms for generalized linear contextual bandits under shuffle differential privacy and joint differential privacy. It tackles three core challenges: private optimization without closed-form estimators, continual noisy updates to design matrices, and privacy-preserving handling of policy switches. The shuffle-DP algorithm achieves regret under stochastic contexts, while the JDP algorithm achieves under adversarial contexts, both with leading terms free of the potentially exponential instance parameter and without spectral assumptions on context distributions. The results bridge a gap between private linear bandits and private GLMs, demonstrating practical DP applicability in GLM-based contextual decision tasks and offering a framework for future tightening of DP-regret tradeoffs. The work combines private convex optimization via shuffle mechanisms, batched and binary-tree release strategies, and novel privacy analyses of policy-switching, contributing to both theory and potential real-world deployments where sensitive contextual data must remain private.

Abstract

We present the first algorithms for generalized linear contextual bandits under shuffle differential privacy and joint differential privacy. While prior work on private contextual bandits has been restricted to linear reward models -- which admit closed-form estimators -- generalized linear models (GLMs) pose fundamental new challenges: no closed-form estimator exists, requiring private convex optimization; privacy must be tracked across multiple evolving design matrices; and optimization error must be explicitly incorporated into regret analysis. We address these challenges under two privacy models and context settings. For stochastic contexts, we design a shuffle-DP algorithm achieving regret. For adversarial contexts, we provide a joint-DP algorithm with regret -- matching the non-private rate up to a factor. Both algorithms remove dependence on the instance-specific parameter (which can be exponential in dimension) from the dominant term. Unlike prior work on locally private GLM bandits, our methods require no spectral assumptions on the context distribution beyond boundedness.
Paper Structure (72 sections, 42 theorems, 92 equations, 1 figure, 2 tables, 2 algorithms)

This paper contains 72 sections, 42 theorems, 92 equations, 1 figure, 2 tables, 2 algorithms.

Key Result

Lemma 4.3

For any subset ${\mathcal{X}} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^d$, there exists a distribution ${\mathcal{K}}_{\mathcal{X}}$ supported on ${\mathcal{X}}$ such that for any ${\epsilon} > 0$, Furthermore, if ${\mathcal{X}}$ is finite, one can find a distribution achieving the relaxed bound $2d$ in time $\mathrm{poly}(|{\mathcal{X}}|)$.

Figures (1)

  • Figure 1: Cumulative regret under different generalized linear models. Private-GLM variants are plotted with distinct colors/markers.

Theorems & Definitions (71)

  • Remark 1.1: Anytime extension
  • Definition 4.1
  • Lemma 4.3: ruan2021linearbanditslimitedadaptivity
  • Remark 4.4
  • Theorem 5.1: Regret bound for \ref{['alg:shuffled_glm']}; full version in \ref{['thm:shuffled_regret_glm']}
  • Remark 5.2: Removing $\kappa$ from dominant term
  • Lemma 6.1: Privacy of switching indicators; part of Lemma \ref{['lemma:utility_privacy_glm_adv_2']}
  • Theorem 6.2: Joint-DP regret bound; full version in Theorem \ref{['thm:jdp_regret_glm']}
  • Remark 6.3: Gap in privacy-dependent term
  • Remark 6.4: Computational complexity
  • ...and 61 more