Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Samuel Yeom

dblp:206/6544 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
4as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 2 first-authorSecurity and privacy · 2 · 2 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
2 papers
Trustworthy machine learning · 100%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness
0.822020
Individual Fairness Revisited: Transferring Techniques from Adversarial Robustness · IJCAI 2020
Hunting for Discriminatory Proxies in Linear Regression Models · NeurIPS 2018
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › fairness
individual fairness
0.412020
Individual Fairness Revisited: Transferring Techniques from Adversarial Robustness · IJCAI 2020
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › fairness › fairness auditing
discrimination discovery
0.312018
Hunting for Discriminatory Proxies in Linear Regression Models · NeurIPS 2018
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability
0.312018
Hunting for Discriminatory Proxies in Linear Regression Models · NeurIPS 2018
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › robustness
adversarial robustness
0.112020
Individual Fairness Revisited: Transferring Techniques from Adversarial Robustness · IJCAI 2020
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
robustness
0.112020
Individual Fairness Revisited: Transferring Techniques from Adversarial Robustness · IJCAI 2020

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

randomized smoothing · 0.4second-order cone programming · 0.3correlation analysis · 0.3causal influence · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2020 Learning Fair Representations for Kernel Models
abstract
Fair representations are a powerful tool for establishing criteria like statistical parity, proxy non-discrimination, and equality of opportunity in learned models. Existing techniques for learning these representations are typically model-agnostic, as they preprocess the original data such that the output satisfies some fairness criterion, and can be used with arbitrary learning methods. In contrast, we demonstrate the promise of learning a model-aware fair representation, focusing on kernel-based models. We leverage the classical Sufficient Dimension Reduction (SDR) framework to construct representations as subspaces of the reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS), whose member functions are guaranteed to satisfy fairness. Our method supports several fairness criteria, continuous and discrete data, and multiple protected attributes. We further show how to calibrate the accuracy tradeoff by characterizing it in terms of the principal angles between subspaces of the RKHS. Finally, we apply our approach to obtain the first Fair Gaussian Process (FGP) prior for fair Bayesian learning, and show that it is competitive with, and in some cases outperforms, state-of-the-art methods on real data.
Zilong Tan, Samuel Yeom, Matt Fredrikson, Ameet Talwalkar
AISTATS2
2020 Individual Fairness Revisited: Transferring Techniques from Adversarial Robustness
abstract
We turn the definition of individual fairness on its head - rather than ascertaining the fairness of a model given a predetermined metric, we find a metric for a given model that satisfies individual fairness. This can facilitate the discussion on the fairness of a model, addressing the issue that it may be difficult to specify a priori a suitable metric. Our contributions are twofold: First, we introduce the definition of a minimal metric and characterize the behavior of models in terms of minimal metrics. Second, for more complicated models, we apply the mechanism of randomized smoothing from adversarial robustness to make them individually fair under a given weighted Lp metric. Our experiments show that adapting the minimal metrics of linear models to more complicated neural networks can lead to meaningful and interpretable fairness guarantees at little cost to utility.
Samuel Yeom, Matt Fredrikson
IJCAI1
2020 Overfitting, robustness, and malicious algorithms: A study of potential causes of privacy risk in machine learning
abstract
Machine learning algorithms, when applied to sensitive data, pose a distinct threat to privacy. A growing body of prior work demonstrates that models produced by these algorithms may leak specific private information in the training data to an attacker, either through the models’ structure or their observable behavior. This article examines the factors that can allow a training set membership inference attacker or an attribute inference attacker to learn such information. Using both formal and empirical analyses, we illustrate a clear relationship between these factors and the privacy risk that arises in several popular machine learning algorithms. We find that overfitting is sufficient to allow an attacker to perform membership inference and, when the target attribute meets certain conditions about its influence, attribute inference attacks. We also explore the connection between membership inference and attribute inference, showing that there are deep connections between the two that lead to effective new attacks. We show that overfitting is not necessary for these attacks, demonstrating that other factors, such as robustness to norm-bounded input perturbations and malicious training algorithms, can also significantly increase the privacy risk. Notably, as robustness is intended to be a defense against attacks on the integrity of model predictions, these results suggest it may be difficult in some cases to simultaneously defend against privacy and integrity attacks.
Samuel Yeom, Irene Giacomelli, Alan Menaged, Matt Fredrikson, Somesh Jha
J. Comput. Secur.1
2018 Privacy Risk in Machine Learning: Analyzing the Connection to Overfitting
abstract
Machine learning algorithms, when applied to sensitive data, pose a distinct threat to privacy. A growing body of prior work demonstrates that models produced by these algorithms may leak specific private information in the training data to an attacker, either through the models' structure or their observable behavior. However, the underlying cause of this privacy risk is not well understood beyond a handful of anecdotal accounts that suggest overfitting and influence might play a role. This paper examines the effect that overfitting and influence have on the ability of an attacker to learn information about the training data from machine learning models, either through training set membership inference or attribute inference attacks. Using both formal and empirical analyses, we illustrate a clear relationship between these factors and the privacy risk that arises in several popular machine learning algorithms. We find that overfitting is sufficient to allow an attacker to perform membership inference and, when the target attribute meets certain conditions about its influence, attribute inference attacks. Interestingly, our formal analysis also shows that overfitting is not necessary for these attacks and begins to shed light on what other factors may be in play. Finally, we explore the connection between membership inference and attribute inference, showing that there are deep connections between the two that lead to effective new attacks.
Samuel Yeom, Irene Giacomelli, Matt Fredrikson, Somesh Jha
CSF1
2018 Hunting for Discriminatory Proxies in Linear Regression Models
abstract
A machine learning model may exhibit discrimination when used to make decisions involving people. One potential cause for such outcomes is that the model uses a statistical proxy for a protected demographic attribute. In this paper we formulate a definition of proxy use for the setting of linear regression and present algorithms for detecting proxies. Our definition follows recent work on proxies in classification models, and characterizes a model's constituent behavior that: 1) correlates closely with a protected random variable, and 2) is causally influential in the overall behavior of the model. We show that proxies in linear regression models can be efficiently identified by solving a second-order cone program, and further extend this result to account for situations where the use of a certain input variable is justified as a ``business necessity''. Finally, we present empirical results on two law enforcement datasets that exhibit varying degrees of racial disparity in prediction outcomes, demonstrating that proxies shed useful light on the causes of discriminatory behavior in models.
Samuel Yeom, Anupam Datta, Matt Fredrikson
NeurIPS1