arXiv subjects

Lucas Rosenblatt

Publications and source records attributed to Lucas Rosenblatt.

24 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2023

Epistemic Parity: Reproducibility as an Evaluation Metric for Differential Privacy

Differential privacy (DP) data synthesizers support public release of sensitive information, offering theoretical guarantees for privacy but limited evidence of utility in practical settings. Utility is typically measured as the error on representative proxy tasks, such as descriptive statistics, accuracy of trained classifiers, or performance over a query workload. The ability for these results to generalize to practitioners' experience has been questioned in a number of settings, including the U.S. Census. In this paper, we propose an evaluation methodology for synthetic data that avoids assumptions about the representativeness of proxy tasks, instead measuring the likelihood that published conclusions would change had the authors used synthetic data, a condition we call epistemic parity. Our methodology consists of reproducing empirical conclusions of peer-reviewed papers on real, publicly available data, then re-running these experiments a second time on DP synthetic data, and comparing the results. We instantiate our methodology over a benchmark of recent peer-reviewed papers that analyze public datasets in the ICPSR repository. We model quantitative claims computationally to automate the experimental workflow, and model qualitative claims by reproducing visualizations and comparing the results manually. We then generate DP synthetic datasets using multiple state-of-the-art mechanisms, and estimate the likelihood that these conclusions will hold. We find that state-of-the-art DP synthesizers are able to achieve high epistemic parity for several papers in our benchmark. However, some papers, and particularly some specific findings, are difficult to reproduce for any of the synthesizers. We advocate for a new class of mechanisms that favor stronger utility guarantees and offer privacy protection with a focus on application-specific threat models and risk-assessment.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2023

Counterfactual Fairness Is Basically Demographic Parity

Making fair decisions is crucial to ethically implementing machine learning algorithms in social settings. In this work, we consider the celebrated definition of counterfactual fairness [Kusner et al., NeurIPS, 2017]. We begin by showing that an algorithm which satisfies counterfactual fairness also satisfies demographic parity, a far simpler fairness constraint. Similarly, we show that all algorithms satisfying demographic parity can be trivially modified to satisfy counterfactual fairness. Together, our results indicate that counterfactual fairness is basically equivalent to demographic parity, which has important implications for the growing body of work on counterfactual fairness. We then validate our theoretical findings empirically, analyzing three existing algorithms for counterfactual fairness against three simple benchmarks. We find that two simple benchmark algorithms outperform all three existing algorithms -- in terms of fairness, accuracy, and efficiency -- on several data sets. Our analysis leads us to formalize a concrete fairness goal: to preserve the order of individuals within protected groups. We believe transparency around the ordering of individuals within protected groups makes fair algorithms more trustworthy. By design, the two simple benchmark algorithms satisfy this goal while the existing algorithms for counterfactual fairness do not.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

The Possibility of Fairness: Revisiting the Impossibility Theorem in Practice

The ``impossibility theorem'' -- which is considered foundational in algorithmic fairness literature -- asserts that there must be trade-offs between common notions of fairness and performance when fitting statistical models, except in two special cases: when the prevalence of the outcome being predicted is equal across groups, or when a perfectly accurate predictor is used. However, theory does not always translate to practice. In this work, we challenge the implications of the impossibility theorem in practical settings. First, we show analytically that, by slightly relaxing the impossibility theorem (to accommodate a \textit{practitioner's} perspective of fairness), it becomes possible to identify a large set of models that satisfy seemingly incompatible fairness constraints. Second, we demonstrate the existence of these models through extensive experiments on five real-world datasets. We conclude by offering tools and guidance for practitioners to understand when -- and to what degree -- fairness along multiple criteria can be achieved. For example, if one allows only a small margin-of-error between metrics, there exists a large set of models simultaneously satisfying \emph{False Negative Rate Parity}, \emph{False Positive Rate Parity}, and \emph{Positive Predictive Value Parity}, even when there is a moderate prevalence difference between groups. This work has an important implication for the community: achieving fairness along multiple metrics for multiple groups (and their intersections) is much more possible than was previously believed.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

Critical Perspectives: A Benchmark Revealing Pitfalls in PerspectiveAPI

Detecting "toxic" language in internet content is a pressing social and technical challenge. In this work, we focus on PERSPECTIVE from Jigsaw, a state-of-the-art tool that promises to score the "toxicity" of text, with a recent model update that claims impressive results (Lees et al., 2022). We seek to challenge certain normative claims about toxic language by proposing a new benchmark, Selected Adversarial SemanticS, or SASS. We evaluate PERSPECTIVE on SASS, and compare to low-effort alternatives, like zero-shot and few-shot GPT-3 prompt models, in binary classification settings. We find that PERSPECTIVE exhibits troubling shortcomings across a number of our toxicity categories. SASS provides a new tool for evaluating performance on previously undetected toxic language that avoids common normative pitfalls. Our work leads us to emphasize the importance of questioning assumptions made by tools already in deployment for toxicity detection in order to anticipate and prevent disparate harms.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2022

Spending Privacy Budget Fairly and Wisely

Differentially private (DP) synthetic data generation is a practical method for improving access to data as a means to encourage productive partnerships. One issue inherent to DP is that the "privacy budget" is generally "spent" evenly across features in the data set. This leads to good statistical parity with the real data, but can undervalue the conditional probabilities and marginals that are critical for predictive quality of synthetic data. Further, loss of predictive quality may be non-uniform across the data set, with subsets that correspond to minority groups potentially suffering a higher loss. In this paper, we develop ensemble methods that distribute the privacy budget "wisely" to maximize predictive accuracy of models trained on DP data, and "fairly" to bound potential disparities in accuracy across groups and reduce inequality. Our methods are based on the insights that feature importance can inform how privacy budget is allocated, and, further, that per-group feature importance and fairness-related performance objectives can be incorporated in the allocation. These insights make our methods tunable to social contexts, allowing data owners to produce balanced synthetic data for predictive analysis.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2020

Differentially Private Synthetic Data: Applied Evaluations and Enhancements

Machine learning practitioners frequently seek to leverage the most informative available data, without violating the data owner's privacy, when building predictive models. Differentially private data synthesis protects personal details from exposure, and allows for the training of differentially private machine learning models on privately generated datasets. But how can we effectively assess the efficacy of differentially private synthetic data? In this paper, we survey four differentially private generative adversarial networks for data synthesis. We evaluate each of them at scale on five standard tabular datasets, and in two applied industry scenarios. We benchmark with novel metrics from recent literature and other standard machine learning tools. Our results suggest some synthesizers are more applicable for different privacy budgets, and we further demonstrate complicating domain-based tradeoffs in selecting an approach. We offer experimental learning on applied machine learning scenarios with private internal data to researchers and practioners alike. In addition, we propose QUAIL, an ensemble-based modeling approach to generating synthetic data. We examine QUAIL's tradeoffs, and note circumstances in which it outperforms baseline differentially private supervised learning models under the same budget constraint.

cs.LG↗