BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research pathsDiscover
Research tools
Network
Opportunities
Account
Source author record
Michael Carl Tschantz appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.
Catalog footprint
Research graph
Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.
BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.
Published work
The near universal condemnation of proxy discrimination hides a disagreement over what it is. This work surveys various notions of proxy and proxy discrimination found in prior work and represents them in a common framework. These notions variously turn on statistical dependencies, causal effects, and intentions. It discusses the limitations and uses of each notation and of the concept as a whole.
We mathematically compare four competing definitions of group-level nondiscrimination: demographic parity, equalized odds, predictive parity, and calibration. Using the theoretical framework of Friedler et al., we study the properties of each definition under various worldviews, which are assumptions about how, if at all, the observed data is biased. We argue that different worldviews call for different definitions of fairness, and we specify the worldviews that, when combined with the desire to avoid a criterion for discrimination that we call disparity amplification, motivate demographic parity and equalized odds. We also argue that predictive parity and calibration are insufficient for avoiding disparity amplification because predictive parity allows an arbitrarily large inter-group disparity and calibration is not robust to post-processing. Finally, we define a worldview that is more realistic than the previously considered ones, and we introduce a new notion of fairness that corresponds to this worldview.
Bias in machine learning has manifested injustice in several areas, such as medicine, hiring, and criminal justice. In response, computer scientists have developed myriad definitions of fairness to correct this bias in fielded algorithms. While some definitions are based on established legal and ethical norms, others are largely mathematical. It is unclear whether the general public agrees with these fairness definitions, and perhaps more importantly, whether they understand these definitions. We take initial steps toward bridging this gap between ML researchers and the public, by addressing the question: does a lay audience understand a basic definition of ML fairness? We develop a metric to measure comprehension of three such definitions--demographic parity, equal opportunity, and equalized odds. We evaluate this metric using an online survey, and investigate the relationship between comprehension and sentiment, demographics, and the definition itself.
We present and evaluate a large-scale malware detection system integrating machine learning with expert reviewers, treating reviewers as a limited labeling resource. We demonstrate that even in small numbers, reviewers can vastly improve the system's ability to keep pace with evolving threats. We conduct our evaluation on a sample of VirusTotal submissions spanning 2.5 years and containing 1.1 million binaries with 778GB of raw feature data. Without reviewer assistance, we achieve 72% detection at a 0.5% false positive rate, performing comparable to the best vendors on VirusTotal. Given a budget of 80 accurate reviews daily, we improve detection to 89% and are able to detect 42% of malicious binaries undetected upon initial submission to VirusTotal. Additionally, we identify a previously unnoticed temporal inconsistency in the labeling of training datasets. We compare the impact of training labels obtained at the same time training data is first seen with training labels obtained months later. We find that using training labels obtained well after samples appear, and thus unavailable in practice for current training data, inflates measured detection by almost 20 percentage points. We release our cluster-based implementation, as well as a list of all hashes in our evaluation and 3% of our entire dataset.
To partly address people's concerns over web tracking, Google has created the Ad Settings webpage to provide information about and some choice over the profiles Google creates on users. We present AdFisher, an automated tool that explores how user behaviors, Google's ads, and Ad Settings interact. AdFisher can run browser-based experiments and analyze data using machine learning and significance tests. Our tool uses a rigorous experimental design and statistical analysis to ensure the statistical soundness of our results. We use AdFisher to find that the Ad Settings was opaque about some features of a user's profile, that it does provide some choice on ads, and that these choices can lead to seemingly discriminatory ads. In particular, we found that visiting webpages associated with substance abuse changed the ads shown but not the settings page. We also found that setting the gender to female resulted in getting fewer instances of an ad related to high paying jobs than setting it to male. We cannot determine who caused these findings due to our limited visibility into the ad ecosystem, which includes Google, advertisers, websites, and users. Nevertheless, these results can form the starting point for deeper investigations by either the companies themselves or by regulatory bodies.
Information flow analysis has largely ignored the setting where the analyst has neither control over nor a complete model of the analyzed system. We formalize such limited information flow analyses and study an instance of it: detecting the usage of data by websites. We prove that these problems are ones of causal inference. Leveraging this connection, we push beyond traditional information flow analysis to provide a systematic methodology based on experimental science and statistical analysis. Our methodology allows us to systematize prior works in the area viewing them as instances of a general approach. Our systematic study leads to practical advice for improving work on detecting data usage, a previously unformalized area. We illustrate these concepts with a series of experiments collecting data on the use of information by websites, which we statistically analyze.
We argue that the evaluation of censorship evasion tools should depend upon economic models of censorship. We illustrate our position with a simple model of the costs of censorship. We show how this model makes suggestions for how to evade censorship. In particular, from it, we develop evaluation criteria. We examine how our criteria compare to the traditional methods of evaluation employed in prior works.
Differential privacy is a promising approach to privacy preserving data analysis with a well-developed theory for functions. Despite recent work on implementing systems that aim to provide differential privacy, the problem of formally verifying that these systems have differential privacy has not been adequately addressed. This paper presents the first results towards automated verification of source code for differentially private interactive systems. We develop a formal probabilistic automaton model of differential privacy for systems by adapting prior work on differential privacy for functions. The main technical result of the paper is a sound proof technique based on a form of probabilistic bisimulation relation for proving that a system modeled as a probabilistic automaton satisfies differential privacy. The novelty lies in the way we track quantitative privacy leakage bounds using a relation family instead of a single relation. We illustrate the proof technique on a representative automaton motivated by PINQ, an implemented system that is intended to provide differential privacy. To make our proof technique easier to apply to realistic systems, we prove a form of refinement theorem and apply it to show that a refinement of the abstract PINQ automaton also satisfies our differential privacy definition. Finally, we begin the process of automating our proof technique by providing an algorithm for mechanically checking a restricted class of relations from the proof technique.
Privacy policies often place requirements on the purposes for which a governed entity may use personal information. For example, regulations, such as HIPAA, require that hospital employees use medical information for only certain purposes, such as treatment. Thus, using formal or automated methods for enforcing privacy policies requires a semantics of purpose requirements to determine whether an action is for a purpose or not. We provide such a semantics using a formalism based on planning. We model planning using a modified version of Markov Decision Processes, which exclude redundant actions for a formal definition of redundant. We use the model to formalize when a sequence of actions is only for or not for a purpose. This semantics enables us to provide an algorithm for automating auditing, and to describe formally and compare rigorously previous enforcement methods.