mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Can Querying for Bias Leak Protected Attributes? Achieving Privacy With Smooth Sensitivity

arXiv 2211.02139 ↗First posted 3 Nov 2022cs.LG cs.AI cs.CRcited by 8

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Existing regulations prohibit model developers from accessing protected attributes (gender, race, etc.), often resulting in fairness assessments on populations without knowing their protected groups. In such scenarios, institutions often adopt a separation between the model developers (who train models with no access to the protected attributes) and a compliance team (who may have access to the entire dataset for auditing purposes). However, the model developers might be allowed to test their models for bias by querying the compliance team for group fairness metrics. In this paper, we first demonstrate that simply querying for fairness metrics, such as statistical parity and equalized odds can leak the protected attributes of individuals to the model developers. We demonstrate that there always exist strategies by which the model developers can identify the protected attribute of a targeted individual in the test dataset from just a single query. In particular, we show that one can reconstruct the protected attributes of all the individuals from O(Nk log( n /Nk)) queries when Nk<<n using techniques from compressed sensing (n: size of the test dataset, Nk: size of smallest group). Our results pose an interesting debate in algorithmic fairness: should querying for fairness metrics be viewed as a neutral-valued solution to ensure compliance with regulations? Or, does it constitute a violation of regulations and privacy if the number of queries answered is enough for the model developers to identify the protected attributes of specific individuals? To address this supposed violation, we also propose Attribute-Conceal, a novel technique that achieves differential privacy by calibrating noise to the smooth sensitivity of our bias query, outperforming naive techniques such as the Laplace mechanism. We also include experimental results on the Adult dataset and synthetic data.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 30 of its 79 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Nov 2022.

Builds on

30 of 79 references.

References · 30

  1. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
  2. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
  3. 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
  4. 2017Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairnesscited by 381
  5. 2016Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatmentcited by 368
  6. 2019Differential Privacy Has Disparate Impact on Model Accuracycited by 316
  7. 2017Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Artcited by 315
  8. 2021Membership Inference Attacks on Machine Learning: A Surveycited by 306
  9. 2020No Subclass Left Behind: Fine-Grained Robustness in Coarse-Grained Classification Problemscited by 208
  10. 2019Mitigating Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: Evaluating Claims and Practicescited by 170
  11. 2018Fairness Under Unawareness: Assessing Disparity When Protected Class Is Unobservedcited by 94
  12. 2019Assessing Algorithmic Fairness with Unobserved Protected Class Using Data Combinationcited by 79
18 more
  1. 2018Differentially Private Fair Learningcited by 76
  2. 2020When Machine Learning Meets Privacy: A Survey and Outlookcited by 67
  3. 2018iFair: Learning Individually Fair Data Representations for Algorithmic Decision Makingcited by 64
  4. 2019Operationalizing Individual Fairness with Pairwise Fair Representationscited by 64
  5. 2014Sparse Modeling for Image and Vision Processingcited by 48
  6. 2018Blind Justice: Fairness with Encrypted Sensitive Attributescited by 41
  7. 2020An Overview of Privacy in Machine Learningcited by 39
  8. 2018Proxy Fairnesscited by 29
  9. 2022Active Fairness Auditingcited by 27
  10. 2020Fairness Under Feature Exemptions: Counterfactual and Observational Measurescited by 15
  11. 2018Fair lending needs explainable models for responsible recommendationcited by 12
  12. 2019A Distributed Fair Machine Learning Framework with Private Demographic Data Protectioncited by 8
  13. 2017Use Privacy in Data-Driven Systems: Theory and Experiments with Machine Learnt Programscited by 7
  14. 2016Statistical Properties of Sanitized Results from Differentially Private Laplace Mechanism with Univariate Bounding Constraintscited by 4
  15. 2022"You Can't Fix What You Can't Measure": Privately Measuring Demographic Performance Disparities in Federated Learningcited by 3
  16. 2018Compressed Sensing Using Binary Matrices of Nearly Optimal Dimensionscited by 2
  17. 2020CryptoCredit: Securely Training Fair Modelscited by 2
  18. 2019The Cost of a Reductions Approach to Private Fair Optimizationcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2023: 3; 2024: 4; 2025: 1.

8 papers.