Search for: All records

Differential privacy (DP) data synthesizers are increasingly proposed to afford public release of sensitive information, offering theoretical guarantees for privacy (and, in some cases, utility), but limited empirical evidence of utility in practical settings. Utility is typically measured as the error on representative proxy tasks, such as descriptive statistics, multivariate correlations, the accuracy of trained classifiers, or performance over a query workload. The ability for these results to generalize to practitioners' experience has been questioned in a number of settings, including the U.S. Census. In this paper, we propose an evaluation methodology for synthetic data that avoids assumptions about the representativeness of proxy tasks, instead measuring the likelihood that published conclusions would change had the authors used synthetic data, a condition we call epistemic parity. Our methodology consists of reproducing empirical conclusions of peer-reviewed papers on real, publicly available data, then re-running these experiments a second time on DP synthetic data and comparing the results. 

Counterfactuals are often described as 'retrospective,' focusing on hypothetical alternatives to a realized past. This description relates to an often implicit assumption about the structure and stability of exogenous variables in the system being modeled --- an assumption that is reasonable in many settings where counterfactuals are used. In this work, we consider cases where we might reasonably make a different assumption about exogenous variables; namely, that the exogenous noise terms of each unit do exhibit some unit-specific structure and/or stability. This leads us to a different use of counterfactuals --- a forward-looking rather than retrospective counterfactual. We introduce "counterfactual treatment choice," a type of treatment choice problem that motivates using forward-looking counterfactuals. We then explore how mismatches between interventional versus forward-looking counterfactual approaches to treatment choice, consistent with different assumptions about exogenous noise, can lead to counterintuitive results. 

Counterfactuals are often described as 'retrospective,' focusing on hypothetical alternatives to a realized past. This description relates to an often implicit assumption about the structure and stability of exogenous variables in the system being modeled –– an assumption that is reasonable in many settings where counterfactuals are used. In this work, we consider cases where we might reasonably make a different assumption about exogenous variables, namely, that the exogenous noise terms of each unit do exhibit some unit-specific structure and/or stability. This leads us to a different use of counterfactuals — a 'forward-looking' rather than 'retrospective' counterfactual. We introduce counterfactual treatment choice, a type of treatment choice problem that motivates using forward-looking counterfactuals. We then explore how mismatches between interventional versus forward-looking counterfactual approaches to treatment choice, consistent with different assumptions about exogenous noise, can lead to counterintuitive results. 

Differential privacy (DP) data synthesizers are increasingly proposed to afford public release of sensitive information, offering theoretical guarantees for privacy (and, in some cases, utility), but limited empirical evidence of utility in practical settings. Utility is typically measured as the error on representative proxy tasks, such as descriptive statistics, multivariate correlations, the accuracy of trained classifiers, or performance over a query workload. The ability for these results to generalize to practitioners' experience has been questioned in a number of settings, including the U.S. Census. In this paper, we propose an evaluation methodology for synthetic data that avoids assumptions about the representativeness of proxy tasks, instead measuring the likelihood that published conclusions would change had the authors used synthetic data, a condition we call epistemic parity. Our methodology consists of reproducing empirical conclusions of peer-reviewed papers on real, publicly available data, then re-running these experiments a second time on DP synthetic data and comparing the results. We instantiate our methodology over a benchmark of recent peer-reviewed papers that analyze public datasets in the ICPSR social science repository. We model quantitative claims computationally to automate the experimental workflow, and model qualitative claims by reproducing visualizations and comparing the results manually. We then generate DP synthetic datasets using multiple state-of-the-art mechanisms, and estimate the likelihood that these conclusions will hold. We find that, for reasonable privacy regimes, state-of-the-art DP synthesizers are able to achieve high epistemic parity for several papers in our benchmark. However, some papers, and particularly some specific findings, are difficult to reproduce for any of the synthesizers. Given these results, we advocate for a new class of mechanisms that can reorder the priorities for DP data synthesis: favor stronger guarantees for utility (as measured by epistemic parity) and offer privacy protection with a focus on application-specific threat models and risk-assessment. 

In this paper we propose a causal modeling approach to intersectional fairness, and a flexible, task-specific method for computing intersectionally fair rankings. Rankings are used in many contexts, ranging from Web search to college admissions, but causal inference for fair rankings has received limited attention. Additionally, the growing literature on causal fairness has directed little attention to intersectionality. By bringing these issues together in a formal causal framework we make the application of intersectionality in algorithmic fairness explicit, connected to important real world effects and domain knowledge, and transparent about technical limitations. We experimentally evaluate our approach on real and synthetic datasets, exploring its behavior under different structural assumptions. 

A significant body of research in the data sciences considers unfair discrimination against social categories such as race or gender that could occur or be amplified as a result of algorithmic decisions. Simultaneously, real-world disparities continue to exist, even before algorithmic decisions are made. In this work, we draw on insights from the social sciences brought into the realm of causal modeling and constrained optimization, and develop a novel algorithmic framework for tackling pre-existing real-world disparities. The purpose of our framework, which we call the “impact remediation framework,” is to measure real-world disparities and discover the optimal intervention policies that could help improve equity or access to opportunity for those who are underserved with respect to an outcome of interest. We develop a disaggregated approach to tackling pre-existing disparities that relaxes the typical set of assumptions required for the use of social categories in structural causal models. Our approach flexibly incorporates counterfactuals and is compatible with various ontological assumptions about the nature of social categories. We demonstrate impact remediation with a hypothetical case study and compare our disaggregated approach to an existing state-of-the-art approach, comparing its structure and resulting policy recommendations. In contrast to most work on optimal policy learning, we explore disparity reduction itself as an objective, explicitly focusing the power of algorithms on reducing inequality.