On the Trade-Off between Actionable Explanations and the Right to be Forgotten
As machine learning (ML) models are increasingly being deployed in high-stakes applications, policymakers have suggested tighter data protection regulations (e.g., GDPR, CCPA). One key principle is the "right to be forgotten" which gives users the right to have their data deleted. Another key principle is the right to an actionable explanation, also known as algorithmic recourse, allowing users to reverse unfavorable decisions. To date, it is unknown whether these two principles can be operationalized simultaneously. Therefore, we introduce and study the problem of recourse invalidation in the context of data deletion requests. More specifically, we theoretically and empirically analyze the behavior of popular state-of-the-art algorithms and demonstrate that the recourses generated by these algorithms are likely to be invalidated if a small number of data deletion requests (e.g., 1 or 2) warrant updates of the predictive model. For the setting of differentiable models, we suggest a framework to identify a minimal subset of critical training points which, when removed, maximize the fraction of invalidated recourses. Using our framework, we empirically show that the removal of as little as 2 data instances from the training set can invalidate up to 95 percent of all recourses output by popular state-of-the-art algorithms. Thus, our work raises fundamental questions about the compatibility of "the right to an actionable explanation" in the context of the "right to be forgotten", while also providing constructive insights on the determining factors of recourse robustness.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Towards Bridging the Gaps between the Right to Explanation and the Right to be Forgotten
The Right to Explanation and the Right to be Forgotten are two important principles outlined to regulate algorithmic decision making and data usage in real-world applications. While the right to explanation allows indivi…
Decision MakingOn the Trade-offs between Adversarial Robustness and Actionable Explanations
As machine learning models are increasingly being employed in various high-stakes settings, it becomes important to ensure that predictions of these models are not only adversarially robust, but also readily explainable …
Adversarial RobustnessOn Minimizing the Impact of Dataset Shifts on Actionable Explanations
The Right to Explanation is an important regulatory principle that allows individuals to request actionable explanations for algorithmic decisions. However, several technical challenges arise when providing such actionab…
Enable the Right to be Forgotten with Federated Client Unlearning in Medical Imaging
The right to be forgotten, as stated in most data regulations, poses an underexplored challenge in federated learning (FL), leading to the development of federated unlearning (FU). However, current FU approaches often fa…
Federated LearningTechnical Report for the Forgotten-by-Design Project: Targeted Obfuscation for Machine Learning
The right to privacy, enshrined in various human rights declarations, faces new challenges in the age of artificial intelligence (AI). This paper explores the concept of the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) within AI systems…
Inference AttackMachine UnlearningMembership Inference AttackPrivacy Preserving