On the Impact of Multi-dimensional Local Differential Privacy on Fairness

Automated decision systems are increasingly used to make consequential decisions in people's lives. Due to the sensitivity of the manipulated data as well as the resulting decisions, several ethical concerns need to be addressed for the appropriate use of such technologies, in particular, fairness and privacy. Unlike previous work, which focused on centralized differential privacy (DP) or local DP (LDP) for a single sensitive attribute, in this paper, we examine the impact of LDP in the presence of several sensitive attributes (i.e., multi-dimensional data) on fairness. Detailed empirical analysis on synthetic and benchmark datasets revealed very relevant observations. In particular, (1) multi-dimensional LDP is an efficient approach to reduce disparity, (2) the multi-dimensional approach of LDP (independent vs. combined) matters only at low privacy guarantees, and (3) the outcome Y distribution has an important effect on which group is more sensitive to the obfuscation. Last, we summarize our findings in the form of recommendations to guide practitioners in adopting effective privacy-preserving practices while maintaining fairness and utility in ML applications.

Causal Discovery Under Local Privacy

Differential privacy is a widely adopted framework designed to safeguard the sensitive information of data providers within a data set. It is based on the application of controlled noise at the interface between the server that stores and processes the data, and the data consumers. Local differential privacy is a variant that allows data providers to apply the privatization mechanism themselves on their data individually. Therefore it provides protection also in contexts in which the server, or even the data collector, cannot be trusted. The introduction of noise, however, inevitably affects the utility of the data, particularly by distorting the correlations between individual data components. This distortion can prove detrimental to tasks such as causal discovery. In this paper, we consider various well-known locally differentially private mechanisms and compare the trade-off between the privacy they provide, and the accuracy of the causal structure produced by algorithms for causal learning when applied to data obfuscated by these mechanisms. Our analysis yields valuable insights for selecting appropriate local differentially private protocols for causal discovery tasks. We foresee that our findings will aid researchers and practitioners in conducting locally private causal discovery.

Online Sensitivity Optimization in Differentially Private Learning

Training differentially private machine learning models requires constraining an individual's contribution to the optimization process. This is achieved by clipping the $2$-norm of their gradient at a predetermined threshold prior to averaging and batch sanitization. This selection adversely influences optimization in two opposing ways: it either exacerbates the bias due to excessive clipping at lower values, or augments sanitization noise at higher values. The choice significantly hinges on factors such as the dataset, model architecture, and even varies within the same optimization, demanding meticulous tuning usually accomplished through a grid search. In order to circumvent the privacy expenses incurred in hyperparameter tuning, we present a novel approach to dynamically optimize the clipping threshold. We treat this threshold as an additional learnable parameter, establishing a clean relationship between the threshold and the cost function. This allows us to optimize the former with gradient descent, with minimal repercussions on the overall privacy analysis. Our method is thoroughly assessed against alternative fixed and adaptive strategies across diverse datasets, tasks, model dimensions, and privacy levels. Our results demonstrate its comparable or superior performance in all evaluated scenarios, given the same privacy requirements.

Advancing Personalized Federated Learning: Group Privacy, Fairness, and Beyond

Federated learning (FL) is a framework for training machine learning models in a distributed and collaborative manner. During training, a set of participating clients process their data stored locally, sharing only the model updates obtained by minimizing a cost function over their local inputs. FL was proposed as a stepping-stone towards privacy-preserving machine learning, but it has been shown vulnerable to issues such as leakage of private information, lack of personalization of the model, and the possibility of having a trained model that is fairer to some groups than to others. In this paper, we address the triadic interaction among personalization, privacy guarantees, and fairness attained by models trained within the FL framework. Differential privacy and its variants have been studied and applied as cutting-edge standards for providing formal privacy guarantees. However, clients in FL often hold very diverse datasets representing heterogeneous communities, making it important to protect their sensitive information while still ensuring that the trained model upholds the aspect of fairness for the users. To attain this objective, a method is put forth that introduces group privacy assurances through the utilization of $d$-privacy (aka metric privacy). $d$-privacy represents a localized form of differential privacy that relies on a metric-oriented obfuscation approach to maintain the original data's topological distribution. This method, besides enabling personalized model training in a federated approach and providing formal privacy guarantees, possesses significantly better group fairness measured under a variety of standard metrics than a global model trained within a classical FL template. Theoretical justifications for the applicability are provided, as well as experimental validation on real-world datasets to illustrate the working of the proposed method.

On the Utility Gain of Iterative Bayesian Update for Locally Differentially Private Mechanisms

This paper investigates the utility gain of using Iterative Bayesian Update (IBU) for private discrete distribution estimation using data obfuscated with Locally Differentially Private (LDP) mechanisms. We compare the performance of IBU to Matrix Inversion (MI), a standard estimation technique, for seven LDP mechanisms designed for one-time data collection and for other seven LDP mechanisms designed for multiple data collections (e.g., RAPPOR). To broaden the scope of our study, we also varied the utility metric, the number of users n, the domain size k, and the privacy parameter {\epsilon}, using both synthetic and real-world data. Our results suggest that IBU can be a useful post-processing tool for improving the utility of LDP mechanisms in different scenarios without any additional privacy cost. For instance, our experiments show that IBU can provide better utility than MI, especially in high privacy regimes (i.e., when {\epsilon} is small). Our paper provides insights for practitioners to use IBU in conjunction with existing LDP mechanisms for more accurate and privacy-preserving data analysis. Finally, we implemented IBU for all fourteen LDP mechanisms into the state-of-the-art multi-freq-ldpy Python package (https://pypi.org/project/multi-freq-ldpy/) and open-sourced all our code used for the experiments as tutorials.

BaBE: Enhancing Fairness via Estimation of Latent Explaining Variables

We consider the problem of unfair discrimination between two groups and propose a pre-processing method to achieve fairness. Corrective methods like statistical parity usually lead to bad accuracy and do not really achieve fairness in situations where there is a correlation between the sensitive attribute S and the legitimate attribute E (explanatory variable) that should determine the decision. To overcome these drawbacks, other notions of fairness have been proposed, in particular, conditional statistical parity and equal opportunity. However, E is often not directly observable in the data, i.e., it is a latent variable. We may observe some other variable Z representing E, but the problem is that Z may also be affected by S, hence Z itself can be biased. To deal with this problem, we propose BaBE (Bayesian Bias Elimination), an approach based on a combination of Bayes inference and the Expectation-Maximization method, to estimate the most likely value of E for a given Z for each group. The decision can then be based directly on the estimated E. We show, by experiments on synthetic and real data sets, that our approach provides a good level of fairness as well as high accuracy.

(Local) Differential Privacy has NO Disparate Impact on Fairness

In recent years, Local Differential Privacy (LDP), a robust privacy-preserving methodology, has gained widespread adoption in real-world applications. With LDP, users can perturb their data on their devices before sending it out for analysis. However, as the collection of multiple sensitive information becomes more prevalent across various industries, collecting a single sensitive attribute under LDP may not be sufficient. Correlated attributes in the data may still lead to inferences about the sensitive attribute. This paper empirically studies the impact of collecting multiple sensitive attributes under LDP on fairness. We propose a novel privacy budget allocation scheme that considers the varying domain size of sensitive attributes. This generally led to a better privacy-utility-fairness trade-off in our experiments than the state-of-art solution. Our results show that LDP leads to slightly improved fairness in learning problems without significantly affecting the performance of the models. We conduct extensive experiments evaluating three benchmark datasets using several group fairness metrics and seven state-of-the-art LDP protocols. Overall, this study challenges the common belief that differential privacy necessarily leads to worsened fairness in machine learning.

Survey on Fairness Notions and Related Tensions

Automated decision systems are increasingly used to take consequential decisions in problems such as job hiring and loan granting with the hope of replacing subjective human decisions with objective machine learning (ML) algorithms. ML-based decision systems, however, are found to be prone to bias which result in yet unfair decisions. Several notions of fairness have been defined in the literature to capture the different subtleties of this ethical and social concept (e.g. statistical parity, equal opportunity, etc.). Fairness requirements to be satisfied while learning models created several types of tensions among the different notions of fairness, but also with other desirable properties such as privacy and classification accuracy. This paper surveys the commonly used fairness notions and discusses the tensions that exist among them and with privacy and accuracy. Different methods to address the fairness-accuracy trade-off (classified into four approaches, namely, pre-processing, in-processing, post-processing, and hybrid) are reviewed. The survey is consolidated with experimental analysis carried out on fairness benchmark datasets to illustrate the relationship between fairness measures and accuracy on real-world scenarios.

Causal Discovery for Fairness

It is crucial to consider the social and ethical consequences of AI and ML based decisions for the safe and acceptable use of these emerging technologies. Fairness, in particular, guarantees that the ML decisions do not result in discrimination against individuals or minorities. Identifying and measuring reliably fairness/discrimination is better achieved using causality which considers the causal relation, beyond mere association, between the sensitive attribute (e.g. gender, race, religion, etc.) and the decision (e.g. job hiring, loan granting, etc.). The big impediment to the use of causality to address fairness, however, is the unavailability of the causal model (typically represented as a causal graph). Existing causal approaches to fairness in the literature do not address this problem and assume that the causal model is available. In this paper, we do not make such assumption and we review the major algorithms to discover causal relations from observable data. This study focuses on causal discovery and its impact on fairness. In particular, we show how different causal discovery approaches may result in different causal models and, most importantly, how even slight differences between causal models can have significant impact on fairness/discrimination conclusions. These results are consolidated by empirical analysis using synthetic and standard fairness benchmark datasets. The main goal of this study is to highlight the importance of the causal discovery step to appropriately address fairness using causality.