REVIEW 2 cited by
On Adversarial Bias and the Robustness of Fair Machine Learning
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Optimizing prediction accuracy can come at the expense of fairness. Towards minimizing discrimination against a group, fair machine learning algorithms strive to equalize the behavior of a model across different groups, by imposing a fairness constraint on models. However, we show that giving the same importance to groups of different sizes and distributions, to counteract the effect of bias in training data, can be in conflict with robustness. We analyze data poisoning attacks against group-based fair machine learning, with the focus on equalized odds. An adversary who can control sampling or labeling for a fraction of training data, can reduce the test accuracy significantly beyond what he can achieve on unconstrained models. Adversarial sampling and adversarial labeling attacks can also worsen the model's fairness gap on test data, even though the model satisfies the fairness constraint on training data. We analyze the robustness of fair machine learning through an empirical evaluation of attacks on multiple algorithms and benchmark datasets.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Covert Attacks on Machine Learning Training in Passively Secure MPC
An active adversary can exploit additive error injection in passively secure MPC training to poison models, amplify membership inference, reduce fairness, and reconstruct exact training data.
-
Hiding in Plain Sight: An Effective Physical Adversarial Patch Attack against Visual-Infrared Fused Face Detection
A jointly optimized gradient-mask plus band-aid patch reportedly bypasses visible-infrared fused face detectors with >90% attack success in both digital and physical settings.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.