Distribution-Aware Compensation Design for Sustainable Data Rights in Machine Learning

Abstract

Modern distributed learning systems face a critical challenge when clients request the removal of their data influence from trained models, as this process can significantly destabilize system performance and affect remaining participants. We propose an innovative mechanism that views this challenge through the lens of game theory, establishing a leader-follower framework where a central coordinator provides strategic incentives to maintain system stability during data removal operations. Our approach quantifies the ripple effects of data removal through a comprehensive analytical model that captures both system-wide and participant-specific impacts. We establish mathematical foundations for measuring participant utility and system outcomes, revealing critical insights into how data diversity influences both individual decisions and overall system stability. The framework incorporates a computationally efficient solution method that addresses the inherent complexity of optimizing participant interactions and resource allocation.

1 Introduction

The growing adoption of collaborative machine learning has sparked new discussions about privacy management and data rights. While CCPA [1] and GDPR [2] establish foundational privacy requirements, implementing these regulations in complex learning systems presents unique technical challenges. Traditional approaches requiring complete model retraining prove increasingly impractical as system scales grow [3].

Recent research [4, 5] has primarily emphasized computational efficiency in model updates. However, our analysis reveals that removing participant influence creates deeper systemic effects. First, changes in the underlying data distribution can destabilize model performance across different domains and tasks. Second, the impact of model updates varies significantly among participants, creating uneven incentives for system engagement. Third, participant decisions about system engagement depend on complex interactions between compensation offers and expected performance outcomes.

We propose addressing these challenges through a novel game-theoretic architecture that integrates participant incentives with system optimization. The framework introduces several key innovations. Our dynamic compensation modeling implements a two-stage decision process where system coordinators design compensation strategies considering both immediate and long-term stability impacts. The distribution-aware analysis provides new mathematical tools for quantifying how changes in data distributions affect both system-wide and individual performance metrics. Furthermore, our optimization transformation methods convert complex non-convex compensation problems into tractable optimization formulations.

Our approach implements a Stackelberg game structure with distinct roles and responsibilities. The system coordinator develops comprehensive compensation strategies, monitors system-wide stability metrics, and adapts to changing participant engagement patterns. Meanwhile, participants evaluate compensation offers against potential costs, consider performance impact predictions, and make strategic engagement decisions. This architecture builds upon earlier work in distributed learning [6, 7], while introducing novel mechanisms for stability preservation and fairness assurance.

The mathematical framework underlying our approach addresses several key aspects. Our stability analysis quantifies system-wide performance metrics, models distribution shift impacts, and predicts long-term stability outcomes. The strategic equilibrium characterization examines participant decision spaces, analyzes compensation effectiveness, and models strategic interaction effects. Our optimization methods transform non-convex problems, develop efficient solution algorithms, and ensure computational tractability.

Our research advances privacy-preserving machine learning through multiple innovations in system design. We introduce robust stability preservation mechanisms, develop fair compensation frameworks, and create scalable update protocols. In privacy management, our work implements efficient right-to-be-forgotten mechanisms while maintaining system utility and preserving participant privacy guarantees. For performance optimization, we achieve significant reductions in system instability effects and participant performance degradation while maintaining update effectiveness.

The key contributions of our work are summarized as follows:

• Dynamic Compensation Modeling: We implement a sophisticated two-stage decision process where system coordinators develop compensation strategies that balance immediate removal requirements against long-term stability considerations.

• Distribution-Aware Analysis: We provide new mathematical tools for quantifying how changes in data distributions affect both system-wide performance metrics and individual participant outcomes.

• Tractable Optimization: We develop methods to transform complex non-convex compensation problems into computationally feasible optimization formulations while preserving solution quality.

2 Mechanism Design Framework

2.1 Distributed Learning System with Data Removal Capability

We formulate a distributed learning environment incorporating selective data removal functionality. The system consists of two key components: the base distributed training protocol and an advanced data influence elimination mechanism.

2.1.1 Core Training Architecture

In our distributed learning framework, we have a set of participants $\Psi=\{1,\ldots,P\}$, each maintaining private local data $\mathcal{D}_{k}$ with distribution $\phi_{k}\in\Phi$ and size $s_{k}$. The global objective function for model training is:

$$\min_{\phi}\left[G(\phi):=\sum_{k\in\Psi}\omega_{k}g_{k}(\phi)\right]$$ (1)

where $\omega_{k}=\frac{s_{k}}{S_{\Psi}}$ represents relative data contribution ($S_{\Psi}=\sum_{k\in\Psi}s_{k}$), and $g_{k}(\phi)$ denotes participant $k$’s local loss function.

2.1.2 Strategic Participation Model

When participants request data removal, the system transitions into a game-theoretic framework. Let $\Delta\subset\Psi$ denote departure-requesting participants and $\Theta=\Psi\setminus\Delta$ represent active participants. The system coordinator offers incentives $\mathbf{r}=(r_{1},...,r_{|\Theta|})$ to active participants, who respond with participation levels $\mathbf{y}=(y_{1},...,y_{|\Theta|})$ where $y_{k}\in[0,1]$.

The coordinator’s utility combines three objectives:

$$U_{c}(\mathbf{y},\mathbf{r})=-\eta_{1}M(\phi(\mathbf{y}))-\sum_{k\in\Theta}r_{k}y_{k}-\eta_{2}H(\phi(\mathbf{y}))$$ (2)

where, $M(\cdot)$ measures removal effectiveness, $H(\cdot)$ quantifies system stability and $\eta_{1},\eta_{2}$ are importance weights.

Each active participant’s utility balances rewards against costs:

$$U_{k}(y_{k},\mathbf{y}_{-k};r_{k})=r_{k}y_{k}-\eta_{3}L_{k}(\phi(\mathbf{y}))-\kappa_{k}y_{k}$$ (3)

where $L_{k}(\cdot)$ measures local performance impact, $\kappa_{k}$ represents participation cost, and $\eta_{3}$ weights performance importance.

2.2 Performance Evaluation Framework

The system’s performance is evaluated through three complementary metrics:

Definition 2.1 (Removal Quality).

$M(\phi)=G_{\Theta}(\phi)$ measures how well the updated model approximates complete retraining on remaining data.

Definition 2.2 (System Health).

$H(\phi)=G(\phi)$ assesses overall system performance preservation.

Definition 2.3 (Local Impact).

$L_{k}(\phi)=g_{k}(\phi)-g_{k}(\phi^{0})$ quantifies performance change for participant $k$, where $\phi^{0}$ represents initial parameters.

This formulation naturally leads to a Stackelberg game where the coordinator acts as leader and participants as followers. The equilibrium solution $(\mathbf{r}^{*},\mathbf{y}^{*})$ must satisfy:

1. Coordinator’s optimality: $\mathbf{r}^{*}=\arg\max_{\mathbf{r}}U_{c}(\mathbf{y}^{*}(\mathbf{r}),\mathbf{r})$ 2. Participants’ best response: $y_{k}^{*}=\arg\max_{y_{k}\in[0,1]}U_{k}(y_{k},\mathbf{y}_{-k}^{*};r_{k}^{*})$ for all $k\in\Theta$

3 Analytical Framework for Differential Distribution Effects

3.1 Mathematical Foundations

The analysis of system dynamics requires a rigorous mathematical foundation for understanding how varying data patterns influence model behavior during selective exclusion operations. We establish this through:

Assumption 3.1 (Statistical Performance Principle).

Consider a statistical evaluation function $G:\Psi\times\Phi\to\mathbb{R}$ and distribution $\phi_{k}\in\Phi$. There exists a mapping $f$ such that: $G(\phi,\phi_{k})=f(\phi_{\text{fit}},\phi_{k})$ where $\phi_{\text{fit}}$ represents optimal parameter fit, satisfying: $\frac{\partial f(\phi_{\text{fit}},\phi_{k})}{\partial d(\phi_{\text{fit}},\phi_{k})}\geq 0$

This principle establishes the fundamental relationship between distribution alignment and system performance. Building on this, we introduce:

Definition 3.2 (Pattern Divergence Index).

Each participant $k\in\Theta$ has a distribution pattern index $D_{k}\in\mathbb{R}$ satisfying: $\frac{\partial f(\phi_{\text{fit}},\phi_{k})}{\partial(D_{\phi_{\text{fit}}}-D_{\phi_{k}})^{2}}\geq 0$

3.2 Collective Distribution Dynamics

For active system participants $\Theta$, we define their collective pattern measure:

$$D(\mathbf{y})=\frac{\sum_{k\in\Theta}\omega_{k}y_{k}D_{k}}{\sum_{j\in\Theta}\omega_{j}y_{j}}$$ (4)

This enables reformulation of key system metrics:

1. System Coordinator’s Objective:

   $$U_{c}(\mathbf{y},\mathbf{r})\approx-\xi(\mathbf{y})-\sum_{k\in\Theta}r_{k}y_{k}$$ (5)

   where $\xi(\mathbf{y})=\eta_{1}\mu_{1}(D(\mathbf{y})-\bar{D}_{\Theta})^{2}+\eta_{2}\mu_{2}(D(\mathbf{y})-\bar{D}_{\Psi})^{2}$

2. Participant Impact Assessment:

   $$L_{k}(\mathbf{y})\approx\mu_{3}[\Delta_{\text{cur}}(k,\mathbf{y})-\Delta_{\text{init}}(k)]$$ (6)

   where: $\Delta_{\text{cur}}(k,\mathbf{y})=(D(\mathbf{y})-D_{k})^{2}$ and $\Delta_{\text{init}}(k)=(\bar{D}_{\Psi}-D_{k})^{2}$

3.3 Theoretical Characterization

Our analysis reveals fundamental properties governing system behavior:

Lemma 3.3 (Participation-Impact Relationship).

For $k\in\Theta$, given fixed $\mathbf{y}_{-k}$, $L_{k}(\mathbf{y})$ exhibits monotonic decrease with increasing $y_{k}$.

This leads to quantifiable effects:

Corollary 3.4 (Engagement Effect Quantification).

The differential impact under full versus zero participation is:

$$\Delta L_{k}=\mu_{3}\Gamma_{k}\left(\frac{1}{(\omega_{k}+m_{k})^{2}}-\frac{1}{m_{k}^{2}}\right)$$ (7)

where $\Gamma_{k}=(\bar{D}_{-k}-D_{k})^{2}$, $\bar{D}_{-k}=\frac{\sum_{j\in\Theta\setminus\{k\}}\omega_{j}y_{j}D_{j}}{m_{k}}$, and $m_{k}=\sum_{j\in\Theta\setminus\{k\}}\omega_{j}y_{j}$

Proposition 3.5 (Pattern Influence Characteristics).

For fixed $\mathbf{y}_{-k}$ and pattern profiles $\mathbf{D},\mathbf{D}^{\prime}$ differing in $D_{k}$:

1. Impact differential satisfies: $L_{k}(1,\mathbf{y}_{-k};\mathbf{D})-L_{k}(0,\mathbf{y}_{-k};\mathbf{D})\leq L_{k}(1,\mathbf{y}_{-k};\mathbf{D}^{\prime})-L_{k}(0,\mathbf{y}_{-k};\mathbf{D}^{\prime})$ iff $|D^{\prime}_{k}-\bar{D}_{-k}|\leq|D_{k}-\bar{D}_{-k}|$

2. Pattern superiority condition: $L_{k}(\mathbf{y};\mathbf{D}^{\prime})\leq L_{k}(\mathbf{y};\mathbf{D})$ requires both: $|D^{\prime}_{k}-\bar{D}_{-k}|\leq|D_{k}-\bar{D}_{-k}|$ and $|D_{k}-\bar{D}^{\text{init}}_{-k}|\leq|D^{\prime}_{k}-\bar{D}^{\text{init}}_{-k}|$

These theoretical results yield several important insights:

• Pattern divergence is a key driver of participation incentives

• System stability depends on both instantaneous and historical pattern alignment

• Resource allocation scale significantly affects engagement trade-offs

• Global stability can be maintained through careful pattern management

4 Game-Theoretic Strategy Analysis

This section develops a comprehensive analysis of interactive decision-making between system participants and the coordinator in selective data removal scenarios. We first examine participant equilibrium strategies (Section 4.1), then analyze the coordinator’s optimal resource allocation (Section 4.2).

4.1 Participant Strategic Response Analysis

The strategic interaction among participants forms a non-cooperative game where each aims to optimize their utility given others’ choices. We begin with:

Definition 4.1 (Strategic Equilibrium).

For resource allocation scheme $\mathbf{r}$, strategy profile $\mathbf{y}^{*}$ constitutes an equilibrium if:

$$U_{k}(y_{k}^{*},\mathbf{y}_{-k}^{*};r_{k})\geq U_{k}(y_{k},\mathbf{y}_{-k}^{*};r_{k}),\quad\forall y_{k}\in[0,1],\forall k\in\Theta$$ (8)

Strategic stability requires examining utility properties:

Lemma 4.2 (Utility Structure).

For fixed $\mathbf{y}_{-k}$, participant utility $U_{k}$ exhibits concavity in $y_{k}$ over $[0,1]$.

Proof Sketch.

The proof follows from analyzing the second derivative of participant utility $U_{k}$ with respect to strategy $y_{k}$. By examining the effective participation impact on distribution metrics, we show that the utility function’s second derivative is non-positive, establishing concavity. ∎

This property enables us to establish:

Proposition 4.3 (Equilibrium Existence).

Given allocation $\mathbf{r}$, a strategic equilibrium exists among participants.

Proof Sketch.

We employ the Debreu-Glicksberg-Fan theorem. First, we establish that the strategy space $[0,1]^{|\Theta|}$ is non-empty, compact, and convex. Then, we prove utility continuity in $\mathbf{y}$ and concavity in individual strategies $y_{k}$. These conditions ensure the existence of a fixed point, constituting our equilibrium. ∎

Further analysis reveals the equilibrium structure:

Theorem 4.4 (Strategic Response Characterization).

Under equilibrium $\mathbf{y}^{*}$, each participant’s strategy follows:

$$y_{k}^{*}(r_{k})=\begin{cases}0&r_{k}<\tau_{k}^{\text{min}}\\ \psi_{k}(\mathbf{y}_{-k}^{*},r_{k})&\tau_{k}^{\text{min}}\leq r_{k}\leq\tau_{k}^{\text{max}}\\ 1&r_{k}>\tau_{k}^{\text{max}}\end{cases}$$ (9)

where:

• $\psi_{k}(\mathbf{y}_{-k}^{*},r_{k})=(\frac{\xi_{k}(\mathbf{y}_{-k}^{*})}{\omega_{k}^{2}(\kappa_{k}-r_{k})})^{1/3}-\frac{s_{k}^{*}}{\omega_{k}}$

• $\tau_{k}^{\text{min}}=\kappa_{k}-\frac{\omega_{k}\xi_{k}(\mathbf{y}_{-k}^{*})}{s_{k}^{*3}}$

• $\tau_{k}^{\text{max}}=\kappa_{k}-\frac{\omega_{k}\xi_{k}(\mathbf{y}_{-k}^{*})}{(s_{k}^{*}+\omega_{k})^{3}}$

with auxiliary terms $\xi_{k}(\mathbf{y}_{-k}^{*})=2\mu_{3}\eta_{3}s_{k}^{*2}(\tilde{D}_{-k}^{*}-D_{k})^{2}$, $s_{k}^{*}=\sum_{j\neq k}\omega_{j}y_{j}^{*}$.

Proof Sketch.

The proof leverages the concavity established earlier. We analyze first-order conditions of the utility maximization problem, deriving threshold values that partition the response space. For interior solutions, we solve the first-order condition explicitly. The boundary conditions define our participation thresholds $\tau_{k}^{\text{min}}$ and $\tau_{k}^{\text{max}}$. ∎

For uniqueness conditions:

Theorem 4.5 (Uniqueness Criterion).

Let $[D_{\text{min}},D_{\text{max}}]$ span pattern indices. Equilibrium uniqueness holds if:

$$\frac{3}{4}\sqrt{\frac{3\omega_{k}^{2}(1-\omega_{k})|\kappa_{k}-r_{k}|}{\mu_{3}\eta_{3}}}>D_{\text{max}}-D_{\text{min}},\quad\forall k\in\Theta$$ (10)

Proof Sketch.

We establish uniqueness through contraction mapping principles. First, we bound the derivative of best response functions. Then, we develop sufficient conditions for the joint response mapping to be a contraction. The pattern index range condition ensures this contraction property, leading to a unique fixed point by the Banach fixed-point theorem. ∎

4.2 Coordinator’s Resource Allocation Strategy

The system coordinator faces a complex optimization problem when determining optimal resource allocation across participants. This section develops a comprehensive framework for solving this challenge efficiently while ensuring system stability.

4.2.1 Problem Formulation

The coordinator’s primary optimization problem can be formulated as:

$$\textbf{O1:}\quad\min_{\mathbf{r}}\quad \xi(\mathbf{y}^{*}(\mathbf{r}))+\lambda\sum_{k\in\Theta}r_{k}y_{k}^{*}(\mathbf{r})$$ (11a)

s.t. $$r_{k}\geq 0,\quad\forall k\in\Theta$$ (11b)

$$\sum_{k\in\Theta}r_{k}y_{k}^{*}(\mathbf{r})\leq R_{\text{max}}$$ (11c)

$$\mathbf{y}^{*}(\mathbf{r})\text{ satisfies Theorem~{}\ref{thm:strat_char}}$$ (11d)

where $\lambda>0$ is a trade-off parameter balancing system stability and resource efficiency. The objective function combines distribution alignment cost $\xi(\cdot)$ with total resource expenditure, subject to non-negative resource allocation constraints and budget limitations.

The optimization problem (11) presents several computational challenges:

1. Non-convexity in both objective and constraints

2. Implicit dependence on equilibrium strategies $\mathbf{y}^{*}(\mathbf{r})$

3. Complex coupling between participant responses

To address these challenges, we develop a transformation-based solution approach.

Lemma 4.6 (Objective Transformation).

The non-convex objective function can be approximated by a quasiconvex function $\tilde{\xi}$ through linearization around initial point $D_{0}$:

$$\tilde{\xi}(D(\mathbf{y}^{*}(\mathbf{r})))=\xi_{0}+\nabla\xi(D_{0})(D(\mathbf{y}^{*}(\mathbf{r}))-D_{0})$$ (12)

where $\xi_{0}=\xi(D_{0})$ and $\nabla\xi(D_{0})$ is the gradient at $D_{0}$.

Proof Sketch.

The proof proceeds in three steps: First, we show that $D(\mathbf{y}^{*}(\mathbf{r}))$ is monotonic in $\mathbf{r}$ using Theorem 4.4. Next, we establish that the linearized objective preserves order relationships in the original objective. Finally, we prove quasiconvexity through composition of monotonic and linear functions. ∎

This transformation leads to a more tractable problem formulation:

$$\textbf{O2:}\quad\min_{\mathbf{r}}\quad \tilde{\xi}(D(\mathbf{y}^{*}(\mathbf{r})))+\lambda\sum_{k\in\Theta}r_{k}y_{k}^{*}(\mathbf{r})$$ (13a)

s.t. $$0\leq r_{k}\leq r_{k}^{\text{max}},\quad\forall k\in\Theta$$ (13b)

$$\sum_{k\in\Theta}r_{k}y_{k}^{*}(\mathbf{r})\leq R_{\text{max}}$$ (13c)

We propose Algorithm 1, the Pattern-Aware Resource Allocation (PARA) algorithm, for solving the transformed optimization problem efficiently.

Algorithm 1 Pattern-Aware Resource Allocation (PARA)

1:System parameters, precision $\epsilon$

2:Optimal allocation $\mathbf{r}^{*}$

3:Compute allocation bounds

4:Initialize allocation $\mathbf{r}_{0}$

5:repeat

6:     Find equilibrium strategies $\mathbf{y}_{k}^{*}$

7:     Update auxiliary metrics

8:     Solve quasiconvex subproblem

9:     Update allocation $\mathbf{r}_{k+1}$

10:until convergence

11:return $\mathbf{r}^{*}$

The algorithm’s convergence properties are established by the following theorem:

Theorem 4.7 (PARA Convergence).

Under Assumptions:

1. Bounded gradient: $\|\nabla\xi(D)\|\leq L$ for some $L>0$

2. Sufficient separation: $\min_{k,j\in\Theta}|D_{k}-D_{j}|\geq\delta>0$

Algorithm 1 converges to a stationary point of problem (13) in $O(\log(1/\epsilon))$ iterations.

Proof Sketch.

The proof leverages the quasiconvexity of the transformed objective and the monotonicity of participant responses. ∎

5 Conclusion

In this paper, we presented a novel framework for incentive design in FU that addresses the complex interplay between system-wide objectives of unlearning effectiveness and global stability with individual client interests Through rigorous theoretical analysis, we established the existence and uniqueness conditions for Nash equilibrium among clients, providing valuable insights for designing stable incentive mechanisms in FU. Additionally, we developed an efficient solution for the server. Our extensive experimental results validate our approach across varying settings.