Juba Ziani

Joonhyuk Ko, Juba Ziani, Saswat Das et al.

Statistical agencies rely on sampling techniques to collect socio-demographic data crucial for policy-making and resource allocation. This paper shows that surveys of important societal relevance introduce sampling errors that unevenly impact group-level estimates, thereby compromising fairness in downstream decisions. To address these issues, this paper introduces an optimization approach modeled on real-world survey design processes, ensuring sampling costs are optimized while maintaining error margins within prescribed tolerances. Additionally, privacy-preserving methods used to determine sampling rates can further impact these fairness issues. This paper explores the impact of differential privacy on the statistics informing the sampling process, revealing a surprising effect: not only is the expected negative effect from the addition of noise for differential privacy negligible, but also this privacy noise can in fact reduce unfairness as it positively biases smaller counts. These findings are validated over an extensive analysis using datasets commonly applied in census statistics.

Raef Bassily, Kate Donahue, Diptangshu Sen et al.

Motivated by the rapid push to decentralize sharing of data, we study whether large-scale data sharing coalitions can form in a decentralized manner under differential privacy when players have heterogeneous privacy preferences. We first consider a fully decentralized data-sharing mechanism in which each player decides whether to participate and how much privacy noise to add locally to their sensitive data before sharing. Privacy choices induce a fundamental trade-off: higher privacy lowers individual privacy costs but reduces data utility and statistical accuracy for the coalition. These choices generate externalities across players, making both participation and privacy levels strategic. Our goal is to understand which coalitions are stable, how privacy choices shape equilibrium outcomes, and how fully decentralized data-sharing compares to a centralized, socially optimal benchmark when the number of players is large. We provide a comprehensive analysis across multiple privacy-cost regimes corresponding to different attack/observation models in differential privacy, showing that full decentralization is highly inefficient in terms of both social welfare and estimator accuracy. Surprisingly, we find that a simple partially decentralized mechanism (where players still retain participation agency, but a central designer chooses a fixed privacy noise level for everyone) closes this efficiency gap down to constant factors across all privacy-cost regimes.

Ferdinando Fioretto, Diptangshu Sen, Juba Ziani

Networks are crucial components of many sectors, including telecommunications, healthcare, finance, energy, and transportation.The information carried in such networks often contains sensitive user data, like location data for commuters and packet data for online users. Therefore, when considering data release for networks, one must ensure that data release mechanisms do not leak information about individuals, quantified in a precise mathematical sense. Differential Privacy (DP) is the widely accepted, formal, state-of-the-art technique, which has found use in a variety of real-life settings including the 2020 U.S. Census, Apple users' device data, or Google's location data. Yet, the use of DP comes with new challenges, as the noise added for privacy introduces inaccuracies or biases and further, DP techniques can also distribute these biases disproportionately across different populations, inducing fairness issues. The goal of this paper is to characterize the impact of DP on bias and unfairness in the context of releasing information about networks, taking a departure from previous work which has studied these effects in the context of private population counts release (such as in the U.S. Census). To this end, we consider a network release problem where the network structure is known to all, but the weights on edges must be released privately. We consider the impact of this private release on a simple downstream decision-making task run by a third-party, which is to find the shortest path between any two pairs of nodes and recommend the best route to users. This setting is of highly practical relevance, mirroring scenarios in transportation networks, where preserving privacy while providing accurate routing information is crucial. Our work provides theoretical foundations and empirical evidence into the bias and unfairness arising due to privacy in these networked decision problems.

Srikanth Avasarala, Serena Wang, Juba Ziani

We study how partial information about scoring rules affects fairness in strategic learning settings. In strategic learning, a learner deploys a scoring rule, and agents respond strategically by modifying their features -- at some cost -- to improve their outcomes. However, in our work, agents do not observe the scoring rule directly; instead, they receive a noisy signal of said rule. We consider two different agent models: (i) naive agents, who take the noisy signal at face value, and (ii) Bayesian agents, who update a prior belief based on the signal. Our goal is to understand how disparities in outcomes arise between groups that differ in their costs of feature modification, and how these disparities vary with the level of transparency of the learner's rule. For naive agents, we show that utility disparities can grow unboundedly with noise, and that the group with lower costs can, perhaps counter-intuitively, be disproportionately harmed under limited transparency. In contrast, for Bayesian agents, disparities remain bounded. We provide a full characterization of disparities across groups as a function of the level of transparency and show that they can vary non-monotonically with noise; in particular, disparities are often minimized at intermediate levels of transparency. Finally, we extend our analysis to settings where groups differ not only in cost, but also in prior beliefs, and study how this asymmetry influences fairness.