Cited by 3Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningEthics and Social Impacts of AIPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Towards Fair and Robust Classification

Sun, Haipei, Wu, Kun, Wang, Ting, Wang, Wendy Hui·2022·2022 IEEE 7th European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P)

Abstract

Robustness and fairness are two equally important issues for machine learning systems. Despite the active research on robustness and fairness of ML recently, these efforts focus on either fairness or robustness, but not both. To bridge this gap, in this paper, we design Fair and Robust Classification (FRoC) models that equip the classification models with both fairness and robustness. Meeting both fairness and robustness constraints is not trivial due to the tension between them. The trade-off between fairness, robustness, and model accuracy also introduces additional challenge. To address these challenges, we design two FRoC methods, namely FRoC-PRE that modifies the input data before model training, and FRoC-IN that modifies the model with an adversarial objective function to address both fairness and robustness during training. FRoC-IN is suitable to the settings where the users (e.g., ML service providers) only have the access to the model but not the original data, while FRoC-PRE works for the settings where the users (e.g., data owners) have the access to both data and a surrogate model that may have similar architecture as the target model. Our extensive experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate that both FRoC-IN and FRoC-PRE can achieve both fairness and robustness with insignificant accuracy loss of the target model.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/eurosp53844.2022.00030

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Integrating multi-level fairness techniques can achieve substantial improvements in fairness between groups with only minimal trade-offs in model accuracy.

    “Other research similarly indicates that integrating multi-level fairness techniques can achieve substantial improvements in fairness between groups with only minimal trade-offs in model accuracy [14,15].”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 58

  1. 10.1016/j.paerosci.2005.02.001 · DOI
  2. chen, 0, Robust decision trees against adversarial examples, International Conference on Machine Learning, 1122
  3. 10.1145/3319619.3326890 · DOI
  4. hunt, 2018, Chiron: Privacy-preserving machine learning as a service, ArXiv Preprint
  5. 10.1109/SP.2017.41 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1109/ICMLA.2015.152 · DOI
  7. denis, 2021, Fairness guarantee in multi-class classification, ArXiv Preprint
  8. li, 2018, Textbugger: Generating adversarial text against real-world applications, ArXiv Preprint
  9. 10.18653/v1/D18-1316 · DOI
  10. xu, 0, To be robust or to be fair: Towards fairness in adversarial training, International Conference on Machine Learning, 11492
  11. 10.1109/SP40000.2020.00073 · DOI
  12. chang, 2020, On adversarial bias and the robustness of fair machine learning, ArXiv Preprint
  13. quiring, 0, Misleading authorship attribution of source code using adversarial learning, 28th USENIX Security Symposium, 479
  14. hardt, 0, Equality of opportunity in supervised learning, Advances in neural information processing systems, 3315
  15. chouldechova, 2018, The frontiers of fairness in machine learning, ArXiv Preprint
  16. 10.1145/2090236.2090255 · DOI · Paper page
  17. steinhardt, 2017, Certified defenses for data poisoning attacks, ArXiv Preprint
  18. 10.1109/TIFS.2021.3080522 · DOI
  19. 10.1109/3477.740166 · DOI
  20. 10.1145/3340531.3411980 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/j.neucom.2014.08.081 · DOI
  22. biggio, 2012, Poisoning attacks against support vector machines, ArXiv Preprint
  23. 0, Hospital discharge data use agreement
  24. larson, 0, Data and analysis for ‘machine bias’
  25. 10.1145/3394486.3403102 · DOI
  26. laishram, 2016, Curie: A method for protecting svm classifier from poisoning attack, ArXiv Preprint
  27. madry, 2017, Towards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks, ArXiv Preprint
  28. 10.1007/s10618-010-0190-x · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.24963/ijcai.2018/543 · DOI
  30. szegedy, 2013, Intriguing properties of neural networks, ArXiv Preprint
  31. goodfellow, 2014, Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples, ArXiv Preprint
  32. 10.1145/2783258.2783311 · DOI · Paper page
  33. kohavi, 0, Uci machine learning repository Adult data set
  34. 10.1109/ICDM.2015.84 · DOI
  35. koh, 0, Understanding black-box predictions via influence functions, International Conference on Machine Learning, 1885
  36. shaham, 2015, Understanding adversarial training: Increasing local stability of neural nets through robust optimization, ArXiv Preprint
  37. guo, 2017, Countering adversarial images using input transformations, ArXiv Preprint
  38. kurakin, 2016, Adversarial machine learning at scale, ArXiv Preprint
  39. 10.18653/v1/D17-1215 · DOI · Paper page
  40. mehrabi, 2019, A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning, ArXiv Preprint
  41. o'neil, 2016, Weapons of Math Destruction How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy
  42. angwin, 2016, Machine bias there's software used across the country to predict future criminals and it's biased against blacks
  43. 10.1108/AA-02-2020-273 · DOI
  44. cook, 1982, Residuals and Influence in Regression
  45. chakraborty, 2018, Adversarial attacks and defences: A survey, ArXiv Preprint
  46. bechavod, 2017, Learning fair classifiers: a regularization-inspired approach, CoRR, abs 1707 44
  47. 10.6028/NIST.AI.100-2 · DOI
  48. 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2807385 · DOI · Paper page
  49. 10.1145/3038912.3052660 · DOI · Paper page
  50. 10.1145/2810103.2813677 · DOI · Paper page
  51. kamishima, 0, Fairness-aware classifier with prejudice remover regularizer, Proceedings of the European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, 35
  52. goh, 0, Satisfying real-world goals with dataset constraints, Advances in neural information processing systems, 2415
  53. 10.1109/TKDE.2013.57 · DOI
  54. sharma, 2020, Fair-n: Fair and robust neural networks for structured data, ArXiv Preprint
  55. carlini, 2019, On evaluating adversarial robustness, ArXiv Preprint
  56. fredrikson, 0, Privacy in pharmacogenetics: An end-to-end case study of personalized warfarin dosing, 23rd USENIX Security Symposium, 17
  57. gong, 0, You are who you know and how you behave: Attribute inference attacks via users' social friends and behaviors, 25th USENIX Security Symposium, 979
  58. 10.1504/IJSN.2015.071829 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Sun, H., Wu, K., Wang, T., & Wang, W. H.
Affiliations
  • Meta (United States) (US)
  • Stevens Institute of Technology (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • Stevens Institute of Technology,Hoboken,NJ
Venue
2022 IEEE 7th European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2022-06
Pages
356-376
OpenAlex
W4283397204
Cited by
3
References
5
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.41
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (NSF) (2029038,2135988,1951729,1953813,1953893)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Keywords
fair classification, robust classification, adversarial robustness, adversarial training, input perturbation, surrogate models

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review