We introduce a measure of fairness for algorithms and data with regard to multiple protected attributes. Our proposed definition, differential fairness, is informed by the framework of intersectionality, which analyzes how interlocking systems of power and oppression affect individuals along overlapping dimensions including race, gender, sexual orientation, class, and disability. We show that our criterion behaves sensibly for any subset of the set of protected attributes, and we illustrate links to differential privacy. A case study on census data demonstrates the utility of our approach.
for all outcomes @math , and pairs of databases @math , @math differing in a single element. Similarly to differential privacy, our proposed differential fairness definition bounds ratios of probabilities of outcomes resulting from a mechanism. However, there are several important differences. When bounding these ratios, differential fairness considers different values of a set of protected attributes, rather than databases that differ in a single element. It posits a specified set of possible distributions which may generate the data, while differential privacy implicitly assumes that the data are independent @cite_20 . Finally, since differential fairness considers randomness in data as well as in the mechanism, it can be satisfied with a deterministic mechanism, while differential privacy can only be satisfied with a randomized mechanism.
@cite_20
2090593019 2951448804 2154086287 2564029303
A mechanism for releasing information about a statistical database with sensitive data must resolve a trade-off between utility and privacy. Publishing fully accurate information maximizes utility while minimizing privacy, while publishing random noise accomplishes the opposite. Privacy can be rigorously quantified using the framework of differential privacy, which requires that a mechanism's output distribution is nearly the same whether a given database row is included. The goal of this paper is to formulate and provide strong and general utility guarantees, subject to differential privacy. We pursue mechanisms that guarantee near-optimal utility to every potential user, independent of its side information (modeled as a prior distribution over query results) and preferences (modeled via a symmetric and monotone loss function). Our main result is the following: for each fixed count query and differential privacy level, there is a geometric mechanism @math ---a discrete variant of the simple and well-studi... A mechanism for releasing information about a statistical database with sensitive data must resolve a trade-off between utility and privacy. Privacy can be rigorously quantified using the framework of differential privacy , which requires that a mechanism's output distribution is nearly the same whether or not a given database row is included or excluded. The goal of this paper is strong and general utility guarantees, subject to differential privacy. We pursue mechanisms that guarantee near-optimal utility to every potential user, independent of its side information (modeled as a prior distribution over query results) and preferences (modeled via a loss function). Our main result is: for each fixed count query and differential privacy level, there is a geometric mechanism @math -- a discrete variant of the simple and well-studied Laplace mechanism -- that is simultaneously expected loss-minimizing for every possible user, subject to the differential privacy constraint. This is an extremely strong utility guarantee: every potential user @math , no matter what its side information and preferences, derives as much utility from @math as from interacting with a differentially private mechanism @math that is optimally tailored to @math . A mechanism for releasing information about a statistical database with sensitive data must resolve a trade-off between utility and privacy. Publishing fully accurate information maximizes utility while minimizing privacy, while publishing random noise accomplishes the opposite. Privacy can be rigorously quantified using the framework of differential privacy, which requires that a mechanism's output distribution is nearly the same whether or not a given database row is included or excluded. The goal of this paper is strong and general utility guarantees, subject to differential privacy. We pursue mechanisms that guarantee near-optimal utility to every potential user, independent of its side information (modeled as a prior distribution over query results) and preferences (modeled via a loss function). Our main result is: for each fixed count query and differential privacy level, there is a geometric mechanism M* -- a discrete variant of the simple and well-studied Laplace mechanism -- that is simultaneously expected loss-minimizing for every possible user, subject to the differential privacy constraint. This is an extremely strong utility guarantee: every potential user u, no matter what its side information and preferences, derives as much utility from M* as from interacting with a differentially private mechanism Mu that is optimally tailored to u. More precisely, for every user u there is an optimal mechanism Mu for it that factors into a user-independent part (the geometric mechanism M*) followed by user-specific post-processing that can be delegated to the user itself. The first part of our proof of this result characterizes the optimal differentially private mechanism for a fixed but arbitrary user in terms of a certain basic feasible solution to a linear program with constraints that encode differential privacy. The second part shows that all of the relevant vertices of this polytope (ranging over all possible users) are derivable from the geometric mechanism via suitable remappings of its range. This paper investigates the relation between three different notions of privacy: identifiability, differential privacy, and mutual-information privacy. Under a unified privacy-distortion framework, where the distortion is defined to be the expected Hamming distance between the input and output databases, we establish some fundamental connections between these three privacy notions. Given a maximum allowable distortion @math , we define the privacy-distortion functions @math , @math , and @math to be the smallest (most private best) identifiability level, differential privacy level, and mutual information between the input and the output, respectively. We characterize @math and @math , and prove that @math for @math within certain range, where @math is a constant determined by the prior distribution of the original database @math , and diminishes to zero when @math is uniformly distributed. Furthermore, we show that @math and @math can be achieved by the same mechanism for @math within certain range, i.e., there is a mechanism that simultaneously minimizes the identifiability level and achieves the best mutual-information privacy. Based on these two connections, we prove that this mutual-information optimal mechanism satisfies @math -differential privacy with @math . The results in this paper reveal some consistency between two worst case notions of privacy, namely, identifiability and differential privacy, and an average notion of privacy, mutual-information privacy.