mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Regulation Games for Trustworthy Machine Learning

arXiv 2402.03540 ↗First posted 5 Feb 2024cs.LG cs.GT stat.MLcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Existing work on trustworthy machine learning (ML) often concentrates on individual aspects of trust, such as fairness or privacy. Additionally, many techniques overlook the distinction between those who train ML models and those responsible for assessing their trustworthiness. To address these issues, we propose a framework that views trustworthy ML as a multi-objective multi-agent optimization problem. This naturally lends itself to a game-theoretic formulation we call regulation games. We illustrate a particular game instance, the SpecGame in which we model the relationship between an ML model builder and fairness and privacy regulators. Regulators wish to design penalties that enforce compliance with their specification, but do not want to discourage builders from participation. Seeking such socially optimal (i.e., efficient for all agents) solutions to the game, we introduce ParetoPlay. This novel equilibrium search algorithm ensures that agents remain on the Pareto frontier of their objectives and avoids the inefficiencies of other equilibria. Simulating SpecGame through ParetoPlay can provide policy guidance for ML Regulation. For instance, we show that for a gender classification application, regulators can enforce a differential privacy budget that is on average 4.0 lower if they take the initiative to specify their desired guarantee first.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Feb 2024.

Builds on

24 of 48 references.

References · 24

  1. 2013Intriguing properties of neural networkscited by 5,114
  2. 2014Deep Learning Face Attributes in the Wildcited by 3,679
  3. 2016Deep Learning with Differential Privacycited by 2,682
  4. 2021Convex optimizationcited by 2,479
  5. 2017Renyi Differential Privacycited by 643
  6. 2017Age Progression/Regression by Conditional Adversarial Autoencodercited by 426
  7. 2016Semi-supervised Knowledge Transfer for Deep Learning from Private Training Datacited by 347
  8. 2019Differential Privacy Has Disparate Impact on Model Accuracycited by 316
  9. 2020Differentially Private Learning Needs Better Features (or Much More Data)cited by 233
  10. 2020On the Privacy Risks of Algorithmic Fairnesscited by 82
  11. 2018Differentially Private Fair Learningcited by 76
  12. 2019Putting Fairness Principles into Practice: Challenges, Metrics, and Improvementscited by 70
12 more
  1. 2020Neither Private Nor Fair: Impact of Data Imbalance on Utility and Fairness in Differential Privacycited by 61
  2. 2020Differentially Private and Fair Deep Learning: A Lagrangian Dual Approachcited by 53
  3. 2018Interpretable to Whom? A Role-based Model for Analyzing Interpretable Machine Learning Systemscited by 47
  4. 2020Fair Learning with Private Demographic Datacited by 46
  5. 2019Multi-Objective Multi-Agent Decision Making: A Utility-based Analysis and Surveycited by 45
  6. 2020Chasing Your Long Tails: Differentially Private Prediction in Health Care Settingscited by 37
  7. 2022Disparate Impact in Differential Privacy from Gradient Misalignmentcited by 31
  8. 2020Understanding Fairness of Gender Classification Algorithms Across Gender-Race Groupscited by 24
  9. 2018Property Testing for Differential Privacycited by 16
  10. 2019Automatic Discovery of Privacy-Utility Pareto Frontscited by 16
  11. 2020Optimally Deceiving a Learning Leader in Stackelberg Gamescited by 11
  12. 2023Learning with Impartiality to Walk on the Pareto Frontier of Fairness, Privacy, and Utilitycited by 10

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 3.

3 papers.