2020
2.
Chester, Andrew; Koh, Yun Sing; Wicker, Jörg; Sun, Quan; Lee, Junjae
Balancing Utility and Fairness against Privacy in Medical Data Proceedings Article
In: IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI), pp. 1226-1233, IEEE, 2020.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Altmetric | PlumX | Tags: accuracy, computational sustainability, data mining, fairness, imbalance, machine learning, medicine, privacy
@inproceedings{chester2020balancing,
title = {Balancing Utility and Fairness against Privacy in Medical Data},
author = {Andrew Chester and Yun Sing Koh and J\"{o}rg Wicker and Quan Sun and Junjae Lee},
url = {https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9308226},
doi = {10.1109/SSCI47803.2020.9308226},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-12-01},
booktitle = {IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI)},
pages = {1226-1233},
publisher = {IEEE},
abstract = {There are numerous challenges when designing algorithms that interact with sensitive data, such as, medical or financial records. One of these challenges is privacy. However, there is a tension between privacy, utility (model accuracy), and fairness. While de-identification techniques, such as generalisation and suppression, have been proposed to enable privacy protection, it comes with a cost, specifically to fairness and utility. Recent work on fairness in algorithm design defines fairness as a guarantee of similar outputs for "similar" input data. This notion is discussed in connection to de-identification. This research investigates the trade-off between privacy, fairness, and utility. In contrast, other work investigates the trade-off between privacy and utility of the data or accuracy of the model overall. In this research, we investigate the effects of two standard de-identification techniques, k-anonymity and differential privacy, on both utility and fairness. We propose two measures to calculate the trade-off between privacy-utility and privacy-fairness. Although other research has provided guarantees for privacy regarding utility, this research focuses on the trade-offs given set de-identification levels and relies on guarantees provided by the privacy preservation methods. We discuss the effects of de-identification on data of different characteristics, class imbalance and outcome imbalance. We evaluated this is on synthetic datasets and standard real-world datasets. As a case study, we analysed the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey dataset.},
keywords = {accuracy, computational sustainability, data mining, fairness, imbalance, machine learning, medicine, privacy},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inproceedings}
}
There are numerous challenges when designing algorithms that interact with sensitive data, such as, medical or financial records. One of these challenges is privacy. However, there is a tension between privacy, utility (model accuracy), and fairness. While de-identification techniques, such as generalisation and suppression, have been proposed to enable privacy protection, it comes with a cost, specifically to fairness and utility. Recent work on fairness in algorithm design defines fairness as a guarantee of similar outputs for “similar” input data. This notion is discussed in connection to de-identification. This research investigates the trade-off between privacy, fairness, and utility. In contrast, other work investigates the trade-off between privacy and utility of the data or accuracy of the model overall. In this research, we investigate the effects of two standard de-identification techniques, k-anonymity and differential privacy, on both utility and fairness. We propose two measures to calculate the trade-off between privacy-utility and privacy-fairness. Although other research has provided guarantees for privacy regarding utility, this research focuses on the trade-offs given set de-identification levels and relies on guarantees provided by the privacy preservation methods. We discuss the effects of de-identification on data of different characteristics, class imbalance and outcome imbalance. We evaluated this is on synthetic datasets and standard real-world datasets. As a case study, we analysed the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey dataset.
1.
Dost, Katharina; Taskova, Katerina; Riddle, Pat; Wicker, Jörg
Your Best Guess When You Know Nothing: Identification and Mitigation of Selection Bias Proceedings Article
In: 2020 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), pp. 996-1001, IEEE, 2020, ISSN: 2374-8486.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Altmetric | PlumX | Tags: bias, data mining, fairness, machine learning
@inproceedings{dost2020your,
title = {Your Best Guess When You Know Nothing: Identification and Mitigation of Selection Bias},
author = {Katharina Dost and Katerina Taskova and Pat Riddle and J\"{o}rg Wicker},
url = {https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9338355
https://github.com/KatDost/Imitate
https://pypi.org/project/imitatebias/},
doi = {10.1109/ICDM50108.2020.00115},
issn = {2374-8486},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-11-17},
urldate = {2020-11-17},
booktitle = {2020 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM)},
pages = {996-1001},
publisher = {IEEE},
abstract = {Machine Learning typically assumes that training and test set are independently drawn from the same distribution, but this assumption is often violated in practice which creates a bias. Many attempts to identify and mitigate this bias have been proposed, but they usually rely on ground-truth information. But what if the researcher is not even aware of the bias?
In contrast to prior work, this paper introduces a new method, Imitate, to identify and mitigate Selection Bias in the case that we may not know if (and where) a bias is present, and hence no ground-truth information is available.
Imitate investigates the dataset\'s probability density, then adds generated points in order to smooth out the density and have it resemble a Gaussian, the most common density occurring in real-world applications. If the artificial points focus on certain areas and are not widespread, this could indicate a Selection Bias where these areas are underrepresented in the sample.
We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method in both, synthetic and real-world datasets. We also point out limitations and future research directions.},
keywords = {bias, data mining, fairness, machine learning},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inproceedings}
}
Machine Learning typically assumes that training and test set are independently drawn from the same distribution, but this assumption is often violated in practice which creates a bias. Many attempts to identify and mitigate this bias have been proposed, but they usually rely on ground-truth information. But what if the researcher is not even aware of the bias?
In contrast to prior work, this paper introduces a new method, Imitate, to identify and mitigate Selection Bias in the case that we may not know if (and where) a bias is present, and hence no ground-truth information is available.
Imitate investigates the dataset's probability density, then adds generated points in order to smooth out the density and have it resemble a Gaussian, the most common density occurring in real-world applications. If the artificial points focus on certain areas and are not widespread, this could indicate a Selection Bias where these areas are underrepresented in the sample.
We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method in both, synthetic and real-world datasets. We also point out limitations and future research directions.
In contrast to prior work, this paper introduces a new method, Imitate, to identify and mitigate Selection Bias in the case that we may not know if (and where) a bias is present, and hence no ground-truth information is available.
Imitate investigates the dataset's probability density, then adds generated points in order to smooth out the density and have it resemble a Gaussian, the most common density occurring in real-world applications. If the artificial points focus on certain areas and are not widespread, this could indicate a Selection Bias where these areas are underrepresented in the sample.
We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method in both, synthetic and real-world datasets. We also point out limitations and future research directions.