Keyu Zhu

Keyu Zhu, Ferdinando Fioretto, Pascal Van Hentenryck et al.

Disclosure avoidance (DA) systems are used to safeguard the confidentiality of data while allowing it to be analyzed and disseminated for analytic purposes. These methods, e.g., cell suppression, swapping, and k-anonymity, are commonly applied and may have significant societal and economic implications. However, a formal analysis of their privacy and bias guarantees has been lacking. This paper presents a framework that addresses this gap: it proposes differentially private versions of these mechanisms and derives their privacy bounds. In addition, the paper compares their performance with traditional differential privacy mechanisms in terms of accuracy and fairness on US Census data release and classification tasks. The results show that, contrary to popular beliefs, traditional differential privacy techniques may be superior in terms of accuracy and fairness to differential private counterparts of widely used DA mechanisms.

Keyu Zhu, Ferdinando Fioretto, Pascal Van Hentenryck

Post-processing immunity is a fundamental property of differential privacy: it enables arbitrary data-independent transformations to differentially private outputs without affecting their privacy guarantees. Post-processing is routinely applied in data-release applications, including census data, which are then used to make allocations with substantial societal impacts. This paper shows that post-processing causes disparate impacts on individuals or groups and analyzes two critical settings: the release of differentially private datasets and the use of such private datasets for downstream decisions, such as the allocation of funds informed by US Census data. In the first setting, the paper proposes tight bounds on the unfairness of traditional post-processing mechanisms, giving a unique tool to decision-makers to quantify the disparate impacts introduced by their release. In the second setting, this paper proposes a novel post-processing mechanism that is (approximately) optimal under different fairness metrics, either reducing fairness issues substantially or reducing the cost of privacy. The theoretical analysis is complemented with numerical simulations on Census data.