mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Manipulation-Proof Oblivious Audits against Deceptive Model Providers

arXiv 2608.04365 ↗First posted 5 Aug 2026cs.LG cs.CR cs.CYcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Audits have emerged as a critical instrument for algorithmic governance, providing a mechanism for external scrutiny and governance of machine learning models. However, ensuring the integrity of such assessments remains a challenging issue. For instance in regulatory contexts, audits are typically declared or easily detected, thus enabling model providers to manipulate the process, whether intentionally or inadvertently. This vulnerability is particularly acute in the context of fairness evaluations, in which providers can often infer sensitive attributes and strategically equalize allocation rates between groups to satisfy fairness metrics. In this paper, we introduce a novel audit protocol designed to significantly increase the post-audit detectability of such manipulations by enabling the auditor to query the model in an oblivious manner. Our approach leverages a Private Information Retrieval mechanism to require the provider to label a large set of instances, while preventing it from knowing which subset will ultimately be used for the audit. The protocol is efficient, imposes minimal overhead on the auditor, and requires no modification to the audited model, its training procedure, or its inference pipeline. We provide theoretical guarantees showing that, under this protocol, a provider attempting to hide unfairness must falsify a significantly larger number of responses, thereby increasing both the difficulty and the likelihood of detection of manipulation. Experimental results across representative audit scenarios confirm the effectiveness and practicality of our approach.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 52 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Aug 2026.

Builds on

17 of 52 references.

References · 17

  1. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
  2. 2018Gazelle: A Low Latency Framework for Secure Neural Network Inferencecited by 193
  3. 2019Fairwashing: the risk of rationalizationcited by 81
  4. 2020Fairwashing Explanations with Off-Manifold Detergentcited by 71
  5. 2018Low Latency Privacy Preserving Inferencecited by 57
  6. 2023Who Audits the Auditors? Recommendations from a field scan of the algorithmic auditing ecosystemcited by 49
  7. 2022Evaluation Gaps in Machine Learning Practicecited by 48
  8. 2020The Problem with Metrics is a Fundamental Problem for AIcited by 37
  9. 2021Algorithmic Auditing and Social Justice: Lessons from the History of Audit Studiescited by 22
  10. 2019Faking Fairness via Stealthily Biased Samplingcited by 14
  11. 2024Trustless Audits without Revealing Data or Modelscited by 14
  12. 2024HateDay: Insights from a Global Hate Speech Dataset Representative of a Day on Twittercited by 12
5 more
  1. 2021SoK: Machine Learning Governancecited by 9
  2. 2024Secure and Confidential Certificates of Online Fairnesscited by 7
  3. 2025Robust ML Auditing using Prior Knowledgecited by 6
  4. 2023Practical Solutions in Fully Homomorphic Encryption -- A Survey Analyzing Existing Acceleration Methodscited by 5
  5. 2022PrivFair: a Library for Privacy-Preserving Fairness Auditingcited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.