Data collected about individuals is regularly used to make decisions that impact those same individuals. For example, census statistics have important implications for all aspects of daily life, including the allocation of political power, the distribution of federal funds, and research in economics and social sciences. In banking industries, machine learning (ML) models leverage data to proactively monitor customer behavior, reduce the likelihood of false positives, and prevent fraud. In these settings, there is a tension between the need for accurate systems, in which individuals receive what they deserve, and the need to protect individuals from improper disclosure of their sensitive information. Differential privacy (DP) [23] is now widely recognized as the gold standard for providing formal guarantees on the privacy level achieved by an algorithm. However, central DP can only be used on the assumption of a trustworthy server. Local DP (LDP) [32] is a variant that achieves privacy guarantees for each user locally with no assumptions on third-party servers. In other words, LDP ensures that each user's data is locally obfuscated first on the client-side and then sent to the server-side, thus protecting data from privacy leaks on both the client-side and the server-side. Many Big tech companies have deployed LDP-based algorithms to use in their industrial products (e.g., Google Chrome [24] and Apple iOS [4]).

In recent years, Local Differential Privacy (LDP), a robust privacy-preserving methodology, has gained widespread adoption in real-world applications. With LDP, users can perturb their data on their devices before sending it out for analysis. However, as the collection of multiple sensitive information becomes more prevalent across various industries, collecting a single sensitive attribute under LDP may not be sufficient. Correlated attributes in the data may still lead to inferences about the sensitive attribute. This paper empirically studies the impact of collecting multiple sensitive attributes under LDP on fairness. We propose a novel privacy budget allocation scheme that considers the varying domain size of sensitive attributes. This generally led to a better privacy-utility-fairness trade-off in our experiments than the state-of-art solution. Our results show that LDP leads to slightly improved fairness in learning problems without significantly affecting the performance of the models. We conduct extensive experiments evaluating three benchmark datasets using several group fairness metrics and seven state-of-the-art LDP protocols. Overall, this study challenges the common belief that differential privacy necessarily leads to worsened fairness in machine learning.

Automated decision systems are increasingly used to take consequential decisions in problems such as job hiring and loan granting with the hope of replacing subjective human decisions with objective machine learning (ML) algorithms. However, ML-based decision systems are prone to bias, which results in yet unfair decisions. Several notions of fairness have been defined in the literature to capture the different subtleties of this ethical and social concept (e.g., statistical parity, equal opportunity, etc.). Fairness requirements to be satisfied while learning models created several types of tensions among the different notions of fairness and other desirable properties such as privacy and classification accuracy. This paper surveys the commonly used fairness notions and discusses the tensions among them with privacy and accuracy. Different methods to address the fairness-accuracy trade-off (classified into four approaches, namely, pre-processing, in-processing, post-processing, and hybrid) are reviewed. The survey is consolidated with experimental analysis carried out on fairness benchmark datasets to illustrate the relationship between fairness measures and accuracy in real-world scenarios.

ML-based predictive systems are increasingly used to support decisions with a critical impact on individuals' lives such as college admission, job hiring, child custody, criminal risk assessment, etc. As a result, fairness emerged as an important requirement to guarantee that predictive systems do not discriminate against specific individuals or entire sub-populations, in particular, minorities. Given the inherent subjectivity of viewing the concept of fairness, several notions of fairness have been introduced in the literature. This paper is a survey of fairness notions that, unlike other surveys in the literature, addresses the question of "which notion of fairness is most suited to a given real-world scenario and why?". Our attempt to answer this question consists in (1) identifying the set of fairness-related characteristics of the real-world scenario at hand, (2) analyzing the behavior of each fairness notion, and then (3) fitting these two elements to recommend the most suitable fairness notion in every specific setup. The results are summarized in a decision diagram that can be used by practitioners and policy makers to navigate the relatively large catalogue of fairness notions.