FairProof : Confidential and Certifiable Fairness for Neural Networks

Chhavi Yadav; Amrita Roy Chowdhury; Dan Boneh; Kamalika Chaudhuri

AI summary · arXiv: 2402.12572v1 · cs.LG

FairProof : Confidential and Certifiable Fairness for Neural Networks

Chhavi Yadav, Amrita Roy Chowdhury, Dan Boneh, Kamalika Chaudhuri

Original paper Submitted to arXiv on 19 Feb. 2024 License: CC BY 4.0

How to read this summary? Illustrated guide

The essentials

Machine learning models are increasingly used in societal applications
Concerns about legal and privacy issues necessitate model confidentiality
Fairness skepticism among consumers impacted by model predictions
FairProof system introduced to address fairness concerns using Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs)
FairProof includes a fairness certification algorithm for fully-connected neural networks compatible with ZKPs and implemented using Gnark
FairProof issues fairness certificates by inspecting model weights post-training for neural networks without specific training pipelines
Classification of certification mechanisms for fairness into three categories: optimization programs, robustness-fairness connection leveraging mechanisms, and black-box query access learning theoretic approaches
FairProof focuses on local Individual Fairness (IF) for neural networks using an iterative algorithm, demonstrating practical feasibility for small neural networks and tabular data
Protocol enables model owners to issue publicly verifiable certificates while ensuring uniformity and confidentiality
Experiments show practical feasibility of FairProof in enhancing transparency and trustworthiness in machine learning models used in societal applications

Key points written by AI: they may contain errors, check them against the paper.

AI-generated keywords: Machine learning models societal applications legal and privacy issues FairProof system fairness certification algorithm

Read further

Comprehensive Summary
Layman's Summary
Blog article
Original abstract

Machine learning models are increasingly being utilized in various societal applications. However, concerns regarding legal and privacy issues often require that these models remain confidential. This has led to a growing skepticism about the fairness of these models among consumers who are impacted by their predictions. To address this issue, a system called FairProof has been proposed. FairProof utilizes Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs), a cryptographic primitive, to publicly verify the fairness of a model while still maintaining confidentiality. Additionally, a fairness certification algorithm tailored for fully-connected neural networks is introduced. This algorithm is compatible with ZKPs and implemented in the FairProof system using Gnark. In related work, previous research has focused on verifying fairness while preserving model confidentiality through third-party auditors or using cryptographic primitives to verify other properties of machine learning models. However, FairProof stands out by issuing fairness certificates by inspecting model weights post-training for neural networks without being tied to specific training pipelines. Furthermore, there is a classification of certification mechanisms for fairness into three categories: optimization programs, robustness-fairness connection leveraging mechanisms like adversarial training, and black-box query access learning theoretic approaches. FairProof specifically focuses on local Individual Fairness (IF) for neural networks using an iterative algorithm and demonstrates practical feasibility for small neural networks and tabular data. In conclusion, FairProof offers a protocol that enables model owners to issue publicly verifiable certificates while ensuring model uniformity and confidentiality. The experiments conducted showcase the practical feasibility of FairProof in enhancing transparency and trustworthiness in machine learning models used in societal applications. The use of ZKPs as a general-purpose tool holds promise beyond fairness considerations in machine learning systems.

Introduction

Machine learning models have become increasingly prevalent in various societal applications, from credit scoring to hiring decisions. However, concerns regarding legal and privacy issues often require that these models remain confidential. This has led to a growing skepticism about the fairness of these models among consumers who are impacted by their predictions.

To address this issue, a system called FairProof has been proposed. FairProof utilizes Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs), a cryptographic primitive, to publicly verify the fairness of a model while still maintaining confidentiality. Additionally, it introduces a fairness certification algorithm tailored for fully-connected neural networks and implemented using Gnark.

The Need for Fairness in Machine Learning Models

As machine learning models continue to be integrated into various societal applications, there is an increasing need for transparency and accountability in their decision-making processes. The predictions made by these models can have significant impacts on individuals' lives, making it crucial to ensure that they are fair and unbiased.

However, due to legal and privacy concerns, many organizations are hesitant to disclose the inner workings of their machine learning models. This lack of transparency can lead to mistrust among consumers who may question the fairness of these models.

FairProof: A Solution for Verifying Model Fairness

FairProof offers a solution that allows model owners to publicly verify the fairness of their model without compromising its confidentiality. It achieves this through the use of ZKPs – a cryptographic primitive that allows one party (the prover) to prove knowledge of certain information without revealing it to another party (the verifier).

In the context of machine learning models, ZKPs can be used as evidence that the model was trained fairly without disclosing any sensitive information about its training data or parameters.

Fairness Certification Algorithm for Neural Networks

One unique aspect of FairProof is its introduction of a fairness certification algorithm specifically tailored for fully-connected neural networks. This algorithm is compatible with ZKPs and implemented using Gnark – a framework for building zk-SNARK circuits.

The algorithm inspects the model weights post-training to ensure that the model is fair and unbiased. It does this by checking for any significant differences in weight values between different groups of individuals (e.g., based on race or gender). If such discrepancies are found, the model will not be certified as fair.

Comparison to Previous Research

Previous research has also focused on verifying fairness in machine learning models while preserving their confidentiality. However, these approaches often involve third-party auditors or rely on cryptographic primitives to verify other properties of the model.

FairProof stands out by offering a solution that issues fairness certificates without being tied to specific training pipelines. This makes it more flexible and applicable to a wider range of machine learning models.

Certification Mechanisms for Fairness

There are three main categories of certification mechanisms for fairness: optimization programs, robustness-fairness connection leveraging mechanisms (e.g., adversarial training), and black-box query access learning theoretic approaches.

FairProof falls under the category of optimization programs, as it uses an iterative algorithm to ensure local Individual Fairness (IF) in neural networks. This approach allows for more fine-grained control over the fairness of individual predictions rather than just overall group-level fairness.

Practical Feasibility

To demonstrate the practical feasibility of FairProof, experiments were conducted using small neural networks and tabular data. The results showed that FairProof was able to successfully certify fairness in these models while maintaining their confidentiality.

This showcases how FairProof can enhance transparency and trustworthiness in machine learning models used in societal applications. By providing publicly verifiable certificates, consumers can have more confidence in the decisions made by these models, leading to increased trust and acceptance.

Future Applications of ZKPs in Machine Learning

While FairProof focuses on verifying fairness in machine learning models, the use of ZKPs holds promise for other applications as well. As a general-purpose tool, ZKPs can be utilized to verify various properties of machine learning models without compromising their confidentiality.

This opens up possibilities for using ZKPs to address other concerns related to machine learning, such as privacy and security. Further research and development in this area could lead to even more innovative solutions for ensuring fairness and accountability in machine learning systems.

Conclusion

FairProof offers a protocol that enables model owners to issue publicly verifiable certificates while ensuring model uniformity and confidentiality. By utilizing Zero-Knowledge Proofs, it addresses the growing skepticism about the fairness of machine learning models among consumers impacted by their predictions.

The introduction of a tailored fairness certification algorithm for neural networks further enhances the practical feasibility of FairProof. It also sets it apart from previous research by offering a flexible solution that is not tied to specific training pipelines.

In conclusion, FairProof has the potential to enhance transparency and trustworthiness in societal applications that utilize machine learning models. Its use of ZKPs as a general-purpose tool holds promise beyond just addressing fairness concerns, making it an exciting development in the field of machine learning research.

Created on 15 Oct. 2024

Was this synthesis useful?

Score: 0

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

How to chat with this paper? Illustrated guide

Compare with the PDF

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

AI assistant instructions?

Tools for this paper

Explain it differently 3 free rewrites left today

Save to a collection Group papers in collections to compare them, chat with them and export them. Create a free account Log in

Export BibTeX · RIS (Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote) · Markdown (Notion, Obsidian)

Advanced tools Premium

For researchers who follow a field closely: citation alerts, journal-club slides, version comparison and Zotero export. Discover Premium

Zotero

Citation alerts Citation alerts guide

Who works on it? The people and institutions who publish on its topic

Journal club Premium+ Slides to present it Propose for the journal club

Versions What changed between versions

Talk about it in public Premium+ Press kit: release, questions, hype check Press kit guide

Papers around this one

See them on a map

Ranked by how close their title and abstract are to this paper’s. Select some to read them together.

Closest papers

Very close
zkDL: Efficient Zero-Knowledge Proofs of Deep Learning Training
Haochen Sun, Hongyang Zhang · 2023 · Machine Learning · AI summary available

Abstract
The recent advancements in deep learning have brought about significant changes in various aspects of people's lives. Meanwhile, these rapid developments have raised concerns about the legitimacy of the training process of deep networks. However, to protect the intellectual properties of untrusted AI developers, directly examining the training process by accessing the model parameters and training data by verifiers is often prohibited. In response to this challenge, we present zkDL, an efficient zero-knowledge proof of deep learning training. At the core of zkDL is zkReLU, a specialized zero-knowledge proof protocol with optimized proving time and proof size for the ReLU activation function,…
Close
Enforcing Delayed-Impact Fairness Guarantees
Aline Weber, Blossom Metevier, Yuriy Brun et al. · 2022 · Machine Learning · AI summary available

Abstract
Recent research has shown that seemingly fair machine learning models, when used to inform decisions that have an impact on peoples' lives or well-being (e.g., applications involving education, employment, and lending), can inadvertently increase social inequality in the long term. This is because prior fairness-aware algorithms only consider static fairness constraints, such as equal opportunity or demographic parity. However, enforcing constraints of this type may result in models that have negative long-term impact on disadvantaged individuals and communities. We introduce ELF (Enforcing Long-term Fairness), the first classification algorithm that provides high-confidence fairness guarant…
Close
Fair Representation: Guaranteeing Approximate Multiple Group Fairness for Unknown Tasks
Xudong Shen, Yongkang Wong, Mohan Kankanhalli · 2021 · Machine Learning · AI summary available

Abstract
Motivated by scenarios where data is used for diverse prediction tasks, we study whether fair representation can be used to guarantee fairness for unknown tasks and for multiple fairness notions simultaneously. We consider seven group fairness notions that cover the concepts of independence, separation, and calibration. Against the backdrop of the fairness impossibility results, we explore approximate fairness. We prove that, although fair representation might not guarantee fairness for all prediction tasks, it does guarantee fairness for an important subset of tasks -- the tasks for which the representation is discriminative. Specifically, all seven group fairness notions are linearly contr…
Close
What does it take to catch a Chinchilla? Verifying Rules on Large-Scale Neural Network Training via Compute Monitoring
Yonadav Shavit · 2023 · Machine Learning · AI summary available

Abstract
As advanced machine learning systems' capabilities begin to play a significant role in geopolitics and societal order, it may become imperative that (1) governments be able to enforce rules on the development of advanced ML systems within their borders, and (2) countries be able to verify each other's compliance with potential future international agreements on advanced ML development. This work analyzes one mechanism to achieve this, by monitoring the computing hardware used for large-scale NN training. The framework's primary goal is to provide governments high confidence that no actor uses large quantities of specialized ML chips to execute a training run in violation of agreed rules. At …
Close
Proof-of-Learning: Definitions and Practice
Hengrui Jia, Mohammad Yaghini, Christopher A. Choquette-Choo et al. · 2021 · Machine Learning · AI summary available

Abstract
Training machine learning (ML) models typically involves expensive iterative optimization. Once the model's final parameters are released, there is currently no mechanism for the entity which trained the model to prove that these parameters were indeed the result of this optimization procedure. Such a mechanism would support security of ML applications in several ways. For instance, it would simplify ownership resolution when multiple parties contest ownership of a specific model. It would also facilitate the distributed training across untrusted workers where Byzantine workers might otherwise mount a denial-of-service by returning incorrect model updates. In this paper, we remediate this pr…
Related
Learning Credible Deep Neural Networks with Rationale Regularization
Mengnan Du, Ninghao Liu, Fan Yang et al. · 2019 · Machine Learning · AI summary available

Abstract
Recent explainability related studies have shown that state-of-the-art DNNs do not always adopt correct evidences to make decisions. It not only hampers their generalization but also makes them less likely to be trusted by end-users. In pursuit of developing more credible DNNs, in this paper we propose CREX, which encourages DNN models to focus more on evidences that actually matter for the task at hand, and to avoid overfitting to data-dependent bias and artifacts. Specifically, CREX regularizes the training process of DNNs with rationales, i.e., a subset of features highlighted by domain experts as justifications for predictions, to enforce DNNs to generate local explanations that conform …
Related
Position Paper: Towards Transparent Machine Learning
Dustin Juliano · 2019 · Machine Learning · AI summary available

Abstract
Transparent machine learning is introduced as an alternative form of machine learning, where both the model and the learning system are represented in source code form. The goal of this project is to enable direct human understanding of machine learning models, giving us the ability to learn, verify, and refine them as programs. If solved, this technology could represent a best-case scenario for the safety and security of AI systems going forward.
Related
The Frontiers of Fairness in Machine Learning
Alexandra Chouldechova, Aaron Roth · 2018 · Machine Learning · AI summary available

Abstract
The last few years have seen an explosion of academic and popular interest in algorithmic fairness. Despite this interest and the volume and velocity of work that has been produced recently, the fundamental science of fairness in machine learning is still in a nascent state. In March 2018, we convened a group of experts as part of a CCC visioning workshop to assess the state of the field, and distill the most promising research directions going forward. This report summarizes the findings of that workshop. Along the way, it surveys recent theoretical work in the field and points towards promising directions for research.

Go further

How are these papers found?

We compare the title and abstract of this paper with those of every paper summarized on this site, and with the papers Semantic Scholar recommends, those it cites and those citing it (for a much-cited paper, its most recent citations and, from OpenAlex, the most cited ones). Among the prior work and the follow-ups, the papers that use each other in depth, a method it uses and the much-cited follow-ups come a little higher. The levels (very close, close, related) come from the similarity of the texts, not from a judgment of quality; * marks a paper without an abstract, compared by its title. The sentence under a paper is written by an AI from the two abstracts: check it in the papers. A paper marked not relevant by three readers leaves the list.

For now only among the papers summarized on this site: search again to add the prior work, the follow-ups and Semantic Scholar’s recommendations.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.