pith. sign in

arxiv: 2305.16272 · v5 · submitted 2023-05-25 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.GT· stat.ML

Incentivizing Honesty among Competitors in Collaborative Learning and Optimization

Florian E. Dorner , Nikola Konstantinov , Georgi Pashaliev , Martin Vechev This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 08:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.GTstat.ML
keywords collaborative learningfederated learningincentive mechanismsgame theoryhonest updatesmean estimationstochastic gradient descent
0
0 comments X

The pith

Rational clients in collaborative learning manipulate updates to harm competitors, but designed mechanisms can incentivize honesty and achieve near-cooperative performance.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Participants in collaborative learning often compete on a downstream task, creating incentives to send dishonest updates that damage others' models. Modeling these interactions as a game reveals that rational players will choose extreme manipulations for a natural class of actions, blocking effective learning. The paper introduces mechanisms that change the game so honest updates become the equilibrium strategy. These mechanisms achieve learning quality comparable to when all participants fully cooperate. Experiments on a non-convex federated learning task confirm the approach works in practice.

Core claim

The central claim is that in a game modeling collaborative learning among competitors, rational clients are incentivized to strongly manipulate their updates for natural action classes, preventing learning. Mechanisms can be designed to incentivize honest communication, ensuring learning quality comparable to full cooperation. This holds for single-round mean estimation and multi-round SGD on strongly-convex objectives, with empirical validation on non-convex benchmarks.

What carries the argument

A game where each client's utility combines the shared learning objective with their private competitive advantage on a downstream task; the incentive mechanisms modify the protocol to make truth-telling dominant.

If this is right

  • Single-round mean estimation converges to the true mean under the mechanisms.
  • Multi-round SGD on strongly convex objectives reaches loss values close to the cooperative case.
  • Empirical results show effectiveness on standard non-convex federated learning tasks.
  • Modeling incentives explicitly yields robustness guarantees without assuming malicious clients.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Such mechanisms could be adapted to encourage data sharing among competing firms in other domains.
  • Relaxing the 'natural class of actions' assumption might reveal additional manipulation strategies that require stronger mechanisms.
  • Integration with existing federated learning frameworks could enable practical deployment among competitors.

Load-bearing premise

The natural class of player actions studied captures the manipulations that real competitors would use, and the modeled utilities accurately reflect their downstream competitive payoffs.

What would settle it

Observe whether, under the proposed mechanism, any participant can increase their utility by deviating from honest reporting while others report honestly, in either the mean estimation or SGD setting.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2305.16272 by Florian E. Dorner, Georgi Pashaliev, Martin Vechev, Nikola Konstantinov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FeMNIST Dataset 0 1 2 3 4 5 Added Noise αA 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Average Reward R ip(C) for group A C=0 C=0.0005 C=0.001 C=0.002 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: αA = 0, αB vary￾ing. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Added Noise αB 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.43 Average Reward R ip(C) for group B C=0 C=5e-05 C=0.0001 C=0.0003 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FeMNIST with penalty C = 0.0002 −0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Mean vs Median-based aggrega￾tion in the unpenalized setting (C = 0). 0 5 10 15 Added Noise αA 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.50 0.52 0.54 Average Reward R ip(C) for group A C=0 C=2e-06 C=5e-06 C=1e-05 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Collaborative learning techniques have the potential to enable training machine learning models that are superior to models trained on a single entity's data. However, in many cases, potential participants in such collaborative schemes are competitors on a downstream task, such as firms that each aim to attract customers by providing the best recommendations. This can incentivize dishonest updates that damage other participants' models, potentially undermining the benefits of collaboration. In this work, we formulate a game that models such interactions and study two learning tasks within this framework: single-round mean estimation and multi-round SGD on strongly-convex objectives. For a natural class of player actions, we show that rational clients are incentivized to strongly manipulate their updates, preventing learning. We then propose mechanisms that incentivize honest communication and ensure learning quality comparable to full cooperation. Lastly, we empirically demonstrate the effectiveness of our incentive scheme on a standard non-convex federated learning benchmark. Our work shows that explicitly modeling the incentives and actions of dishonest clients, rather than assuming them malicious, can enable strong robustness guarantees for collaborative learning.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript formulates a game-theoretic model of collaborative learning among competitors and analyzes two tasks: single-round mean estimation and multi-round SGD on strongly convex objectives. For a restricted 'natural class' of player actions, it proves that rational clients have dominant strategies to manipulate updates, destroying the collaborative estimator. It then constructs incentive mechanisms that restore honest play inside the same action class and empirically evaluates them on a non-convex federated learning benchmark, claiming performance comparable to full cooperation.

Significance. If the chosen action class and downstream utility functions are representative, the work supplies the first explicit incentive-compatible analysis for competitive federated learning, converting an impossibility result into a constructive mechanism design result. The empirical demonstration on a standard non-convex benchmark provides initial evidence that the mechanisms can be practical.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3] §3 (Game Model) and the subsequent derivations for mean estimation and strongly-convex SGD: both the negative result (dominant manipulation) and the positive mechanism guarantees are proved only inside a restricted class of actions whose definition excludes data-dependent perturbations, history-dependent strategies, and cross-round collusion. Because this modeling choice is load-bearing for the transfer of both results to the stated application domain, the paper must either enlarge the action space or provide a concrete argument why the omitted manipulations are irrelevant.
  2. [Definition 2, §4] Utility functions (Definition 2 and §4): the downstream competitive payoffs are defined axiomatically without reference to any empirical calibration against real market outcomes or sensitivity analysis. If these utilities do not faithfully encode the actual competitive stakes, the claimed dominant strategies and mechanism equilibria do not carry over.
  3. [Empirical Evaluation] Empirical section: the non-convex benchmark experiments report no baselines that isolate the effect of the incentive mechanism from standard robust aggregation or differential privacy, nor do they quantify how often the restricted action class is actually played by the implemented adversaries.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the mechanism parameters (e.g., the penalty scaling factor) is introduced without a consolidated table, making it difficult to track across the mean-estimation and SGD analyses.
  2. The abstract states 'learning quality comparable to full cooperation' but the empirical plots do not include a direct full-cooperation baseline curve; this should be added for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (Game Model) and the subsequent derivations for mean estimation and strongly-convex SGD: both the negative result (dominant manipulation) and the positive mechanism guarantees are proved only inside a restricted class of actions whose definition excludes data-dependent perturbations, history-dependent strategies, and cross-round collusion. Because this modeling choice is load-bearing for the transfer of both results to the stated application domain, the paper must either enlarge the action space or provide a concrete argument why the omitted manipulations are irrelevant.

    Authors: We agree the proofs rely on the restricted natural class. In revision we will add a dedicated paragraph justifying the restriction: data-dependent perturbations require access to other clients' private data (violating the FL premise of local data privacy); history-dependent strategies presuppose persistent client state across rounds, which standard FL protocols do not provide; and cross-round collusion would require coordination among competitors, contradicting the non-cooperative game. These omissions are therefore not arbitrary but follow from the problem setting, preserving the dominant-strategy and mechanism results. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Definition 2, §4] Utility functions (Definition 2 and §4): the downstream competitive payoffs are defined axiomatically without reference to any empirical calibration against real market outcomes or sensitivity analysis. If these utilities do not faithfully encode the actual competitive stakes, the claimed dominant strategies and mechanism equilibria do not carry over.

    Authors: The utilities are deliberately axiomatic to obtain general results that hold for any payoffs satisfying the stated competitive ordering. We will add an appendix with sensitivity analysis that varies the relative weights of own-model versus competitor-model quality and shows that the dominant manipulation and mechanism equilibria remain intact across the tested range. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Empirical Evaluation] Empirical section: the non-convex benchmark experiments report no baselines that isolate the effect of the incentive mechanism from standard robust aggregation or differential privacy, nor do they quantify how often the restricted action class is actually played by the implemented adversaries.

    Authors: We will revise the experimental section to add baselines using robust aggregators (median, Krum) and DP-SGD. We will also report the empirical frequency with which the implemented adversaries select actions inside the restricted class, thereby quantifying how well the modeling assumption matches the simulated behavior. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; results derived from explicit external game model

full rationale

The paper explicitly formulates a game model with a chosen 'natural class of player actions' and utility functions as modeling assumptions, then derives incentive incompatibility and mechanism results inside that model for mean estimation and strongly-convex SGD. No equation or claim reduces a 'prediction' to a fitted input by construction, nor does any result rely on self-citation load-bearing or ansatz smuggled via prior work. The empirical section uses a separate non-convex benchmark. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained and falsifiable against the stated modeling choices rather than tautological.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard rational-player assumptions from game theory and on the modeling choice that downstream competition can be captured by a specific utility function over model quality.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Players are rational utility maximizers whose payoffs depend on both collaborative model quality and downstream competitive advantage.
    Invoked to conclude that manipulation is the equilibrium strategy.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5725 in / 1015 out tokens · 18900 ms · 2026-05-24T08:46:22.510793+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mitigating bias in federated learning

    Abay, A., Zhou, Y., Baracaldo, N., Rajamoni, S., Chuba, E., and Ludwig, H. Mitigating bias in federated learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.02447, 2020

    work page arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    Byzantine stochastic gradient descent

    Alistarh, D., Allen-Zhu, Z., and Li, J. Byzantine stochastic gradient descent. Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Balashov, M. V. and Golubev, M. O. About the lipschitz property of the metric projection in the hilbert space. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 394 0 (2): 0 545--551, 2012

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    M., Guerraoui, R., and Stainer, J

    Blanchard, P., El Mhamdi, E. M., Guerraoui, R., and Stainer, J. Machine learning with adversaries: Byzantine tolerant gradient descent. Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    E., and Nocedal, J

    Bottou, L., Curtis, F. E., and Nocedal, J. Optimization methods for large-scale machine learning. SIAM review, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Optimum statistical estimation with strategic data sources

    Cai, Y., Daskalakis, C., and Papadimitriou, C. Optimum statistical estimation with strategic data sources. In Conference on Learning Theory, pp.\ 280--296. PMLR, 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Caldas, S., Duddu, S. M. K., Wu, P., Li, T., Kone c n \`y , J., McMahan, H. B., Smith, V., and Talwalkar, A. Leaf: A benchmark for federated settings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.01097, 2018

    work page arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    M., Karimireddy, S

    Chayti, E. M., Karimireddy, S. P., Stich, S. U., Flammarion, N., and Jaggi, M. Linear speedup in personalized collaborative learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.05968, 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    Chung, K. L. On a stochastic approximation method. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1954

    work page 1954

  10. [10]

    and Kleinberg, J

    Donahue, K. and Kleinberg, J. Model-sharing games: Analyzing federated learning under voluntary participation. AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2021 a

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    and Kleinberg, J

    Donahue, K. and Kleinberg, J. Optimality and stability in federated learning: A game-theoretic approach. Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2021 b

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    and Ye, M

    Fang, X. and Ye, M. Robust federated learning with noisy and heterogeneous clients. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    A., Mao, A., Chen, Y., and Adams, R

    Gao, X. A., Mao, A., Chen, Y., and Adams, R. P. Trick or treat: putting peer prediction to the test. In Proceedings of the fifteenth ACM conference on Economics and computation, pp.\ 507--524, 2014

    work page 2014

  14. [14]

    and Tennenholtz, M

    Gradwohl, R. and Tennenholtz, M. Coopetition against an amazon. In International Symposium on Algorithmic Game Theory, pp.\ 347--365. Springer, 2022

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    P., and Jaggi, M

    Grimberg, F., Hartley, M.-A., Karimireddy, S. P., and Jaggi, M. Optimal model averaging: Towards personalized collaborative learning. International Workshop on Federated Learning for User Privacy and Data Confidentiality in Conjunction with ICML 2021, 2021

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    Fl games: A federated learning framework for distribution shifts

    Gupta, S., Ahuja, K., Havaei, M., Chatterjee, N., and Bengio, Y. Fl games: A federated learning framework for distribution shifts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.11101, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Jackson, M. O. Mechanism theory. Available at SSRN 2542983, 2014

    work page 2014

  18. [18]

    B., Avent, B., Bellet, A., Bennis, M., Bhagoji, A

    Kairouz, P., McMahan, H. B., Avent, B., Bellet, A., Bennis, M., Bhagoji, A. N., Bonawitz, K., Charles, Z., Cormode, G., Cummings, R., et al. Advances and open problems in federated learning. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning , 2021

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Reciprocal scoring: A method for forecasting unanswerable questions

    Karger, E., Monrad, J., Mellers, B., and Tetlock, P. Reciprocal scoring: A method for forecasting unanswerable questions. Available at SSRN, 2021

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    P., Guo, W., and Jordan, M

    Karimireddy, S. P., Guo, W., and Jordan, M. Mechanisms that incentivize data sharing in federated learning. In Workshop on Federated Learning: Recent Advances and New Challenges (in Conjunction with NeurIPS 2022), 2022

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    On the sample complexity of adversarial multi-source pac learning

    Konstantinov, N., Frantar, E., Alistarh, D., and Lampert, C. On the sample complexity of adversarial multi-source pac learning. In International Conference on Machine Learing (ICML), 2020

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    McMahan, B., Moore, E., Ramage, D., Hampson, S., and y Arcas, B. A. Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (AISTATS), 2017

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    Eliciting informative feedback: The peer-prediction method

    Miller, N., Resnick, P., and Zeckhauser, R. Eliciting informative feedback: The peer-prediction method. Management Science, 51 0 (9): 0 1359--1373, 2005

    work page 2005

  24. [24]

    Non-cooperative games

    Nash, J. Non-cooperative games. The Annals of Mathematics, 54 0 (2): 0 286--295, 1951

    work page 1951

  25. [25]

    Osborne, M. J. and Rubinstein, A. A course in game theory. MIT press, 1994

    work page 1994

  26. [26]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library

    Paszke, A., Gross, S., Massa, F., Lerer, A., Bradbury, J., Chanan, G., Killeen, T., Lin, Z., Gimelshein, N., Antiga, L., et al. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    and Valiant, G

    Qiao, M. and Valiant, G. Learning discrete distributions from untrusted batches. Innovations of Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS), 2018

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    Making gradient descent optimal for strongly convex stochastic optimization

    Rakhlin, A., Shamir, O., and Sridharan, K. Making gradient descent optimal for strongly convex stochastic optimization. In Proceedings of the 29th International Coference on International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 1571--1578, 2012

    work page 2012

  29. [29]

    Back to the drawing board: A critical evaluation of poisoning attacks on production federated learning

    Shejwalkar, V., Houmansadr, A., Kairouz, P., and Ramage, D. Back to the drawing board: A critical evaluation of poisoning attacks on production federated learning. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2022

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    E., and Liu, L

    Tolpegin, V., Truex, S., Gursoy, M. E., and Liu, L. Data poisoning attacks against federated learning systems. In European Symposium on Research in Computer Security, 2020

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    C., Niyato, D., Zhang, Y., and Li, J

    Tu, X., Zhu, K., Luong, N. C., Niyato, D., Zhang, Y., and Li, J. Incentive mechanisms for federated learning: From economic and game theoretic perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.11850, 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    and Chen, Y

    Waggoner, B. and Chen, Y. Output agreement mechanisms and common knowledge. In Second AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, 2014

    work page 2014

  33. [33]

    and Parkes, D

    Witkowski, J. and Parkes, D. C. Peer prediction without a common prior. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp.\ 964--981, 2012

    work page 2012

  34. [34]

    Byzantine-robust distributed learning: Towards optimal statistical rates

    Yin, D., Chen, Y., Kannan, R., and Bartlett, P. Byzantine-robust distributed learning: Towards optimal statistical rates. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2018

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION format.date year duplicate empty "emp...

    work page