mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Achieving Transparency Report Privacy in Linear Time

arXiv 2104.00137 ↗First posted 31 Mar 2021cs.LGcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

An accountable algorithmic transparency report (ATR) should ideally investigate the (a) transparency of the underlying algorithm, and (b) fairness of the algorithmic decisions, and at the same time preserve data subjects' privacy. However, a provably formal study of the impact to data subjects' privacy caused by the utility of releasing an ATR (that investigates transparency and fairness), is yet to be addressed in the literature. The far-fetched benefit of such a study lies in the methodical characterization of privacy-utility trade-offs for release of ATRs in public, and their consequential application-specific impact on the dimensions of society, politics, and economics. In this paper, we first investigate and demonstrate potential privacy hazards brought on by the deployment of transparency and fairness measures in released ATRs. To preserve data subjects' privacy, we then propose a linear-time optimal-privacy scheme, built upon standard linear fractional programming (LFP) theory, for announcing ATRs, subject to constraints controlling the tolerance of privacy perturbation on the utility of transparency schemes. Subsequently, we quantify the privacy-utility trade-offs induced by our scheme, and analyze the impact of privacy perturbation on fairness measures in ATRs. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first analytical work that simultaneously addresses trade-offs between the triad of privacy, utility, and fairness, applicable to algorithmic transparency reports.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 92 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Mar 2021.

Builds on

16 of 92 references.

References · 16

  1. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
  2. 2016Membership Inference Attacks against Machine Learning Modelscited by 2,281
  3. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
  4. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,917
  5. 2018A Survey Of Methods For Explaining Black Box Modelscited by 973
  6. 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
  7. 2016Stealing Machine Learning Models via Prediction APIscited by 619
  8. 2017Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairnesscited by 403
  9. 2016European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a "right to explanation"cited by 344
  10. 2017Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Artcited by 315
  11. 2016Visualizing the Effects of Predictor Variables in Black Box Supervised Learning Modelscited by 213
  12. 2017What do we need to build explainable AI systems for the medical domain?cited by 129
4 more
  1. 2016Towards the Science of Security and Privacy in Machine Learningcited by 89
  2. 2014Automated Experiments on Ad Privacy Settings: A Tale of Opacity, Choice, and Discriminationcited by 83
  3. 2018A Simple and Effective Model-Based Variable Importance Measurecited by 51
  4. 2020Model Explanations with Differential Privacycited by 23

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2.

2 papers.