IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/120493.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Epistemic parity: reproducibility as an evaluation metric for differential privacy

Author

Listed:
  • Rosenblatt, Lucas
  • Herman, Bernease
  • Holovenko, Anastasia
  • Lee, Wonkwon
  • Loftus, Joshua
  • McKinnie, Elizabeth
  • Rumezhak, Taras
  • Stadnik, Andrii
  • Howe, Bill
  • Stoyanovich, Julia

Abstract

Differential privacy (DP) data synthesizers are increasingly proposed to afford public release of sensitive information, offering theoretical guarantees for privacy (and, in some cases, utility), but limited empirical evidence of utility in practical settings. Utility is typically measured as the error on representative proxy tasks, such as descriptive statistics, multivariate correlations, the accuracy of trained classifiers, or performance over a query workload. The ability for these results to generalize to practitioners' experience has been questioned in a number of settings, including the U.S. Census. In this paper, we propose an evaluation methodology for synthetic data that avoids assumptions about the representativeness of proxy tasks, instead measuring the likelihood that published conclusions would change had the authors used synthetic data, a condition we call epistemic parity. Our methodology consists of reproducing empirical conclusions of peer-reviewed papers on real, publicly available data, then re-running these experiments a second time on DP synthetic data and comparing the results. We instantiate our methodology over a benchmark of recent peer-reviewed papers that analyze public datasets in the ICPSR social science repository. We model quantitative claims computationally to automate the experimental workflow, and model qualitative claims by reproducing visualizations and comparing the results manually. We then generate DP synthetic datasets using multiple state-of-the-art mechanisms, and estimate the likelihood that these conclusions will hold. We find that, for reasonable privacy regimes, state-of-the-art DP synthesizers are able to achieve high epistemic parity for several papers in our benchmark. However, some papers, and particularly some specific findings, are difficult to reproduce for any of the synthesizers. Given these results, we advocate for a new class of mechanisms that can reorder the priorities for DP data synthesis: favor stronger guarantees for utility (as measured by epistemic parity) and offer privacy protection with a focus on application-specific threat models and risk-assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Rosenblatt, Lucas & Herman, Bernease & Holovenko, Anastasia & Lee, Wonkwon & Loftus, Joshua & McKinnie, Elizabeth & Rumezhak, Taras & Stadnik, Andrii & Howe, Bill & Stoyanovich, Julia, 2023. "Epistemic parity: reproducibility as an evaluation metric for differential privacy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120493, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:120493
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/120493/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shervin Assari & Mohsen Bazargan, 2019. "Baseline Obesity Increases 25-Year Risk of Mortality due to Cerebrovascular Disease: Role of Race," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-15, October.
    2. Steven Ruggles & Catherine Fitch & Diana Magnuson & Jonathan Schroeder, 2019. "Differential Privacy and Census Data: Implications for Social and Economic Research," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 109, pages 403-408, May.
    3. Monya Baker, 2016. "1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility," Nature, Nature, vol. 533(7604), pages 452-454, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kleber Neves & Pedro B Tan & Olavo B Amaral, 2022. "Are most published research findings false in a continuous universe?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(12), pages 1-18, December.
    2. John M. Abowd & Ian M. Schmutte & William Sexton & Lars Vilhuber, 2019. "Suboptimal Provision of Privacy and Statistical Accuracy When They are Public Goods," Papers 1906.09353, arXiv.org.
    3. Dennis Bontempi & Leonard Nuernberg & Suraj Pai & Deepa Krishnaswamy & Vamsi Thiriveedhi & Ahmed Hosny & Raymond H. Mak & Keyvan Farahani & Ron Kikinis & Andrey Fedorov & Hugo J. W. L. Aerts, 2024. "End-to-end reproducible AI pipelines in radiology using the cloud," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-9, December.
    4. Chai, Daniel & Ali, Searat & Brosnan, Mark & Hasso, Tim, 2024. "Understanding researchers' perceptions and experiences in finance research replication studies: A pre-registered report," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    5. Roberto Savona & Cristina Maria Alberini & Lucia Alessi & Iacopo Baussano & Petros Dellaportas & Ranieri Guerra & Sean Khozin & Andrea Modena & Sergio Pecorelli & Guido Rasi & Paolo Daniele Siviero & , 2023. "Towards a Framework for a New Research Ecosystem," Papers 2312.07065, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.
    6. repec:plo:pcbi00:1005412 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Peter Harremoës, 2019. "Replication Papers," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-8, July.
    8. Fernando Hoces de la Guardia & Sean Grant & Edward Miguel, 2021. "A framework for open policy analysis," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(2), pages 154-163.
    9. Antonella Lanati & Marinella Marzano & Caterina Manzari & Bruno Fosso & Graziano Pesole & Francesca De Leo, 2019. "Management at the service of research: ReOmicS, a quality management system for omics sciences," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, December.
    10. Joel Ferguson & Rebecca Littman & Garret Christensen & Elizabeth Levy Paluck & Nicholas Swanson & Zenan Wang & Edward Miguel & David Birke & John-Henry Pezzuto, 2023. "Survey of open science practices and attitudes in the social sciences," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, December.
    11. Thomas F. Heston, 2024. "Redefining Significance: Robustness and Percent Fragility Indices in Biomedical Research," Stats, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-12, June.
    12. Erastus Karanja & Aditya Sharma & Ibrahim Salama, 2020. "What does MIS survey research reveal about diversity and representativeness in the MIS field? A content analysis approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1583-1628, March.
    13. Breznau, Nate & Rinke, Eike Mark & Wuttke, Alexander & Adem, Muna & Adriaans, Jule & Akdeniz, Esra & Alvarez-Benjumea, Amalia & Andersen, Henrik K. & Auer, Daniel & Azevedo, Flavio & Bahnsen, Oke & Ba, 2025. "The reliability of replications: a study in computational reproductions," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 12(3), pages 1-23.
    14. Bor Luen Tang, 2023. "Some Insights into the Factors Influencing Continuous Citation of Retracted Scientific Papers," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, October.
    15. Sigurd Dyrting & Abraham Flaxman & Ethan Sharygin, 2022. "Reconstruction of age distributions from differentially private census data," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(6), pages 2311-2329, December.
    16. James Gaboardi, 2020. "Validating Abstract Representations of Spatial Population Data while considering Disclosure Avoidance," Working Papers 20-5, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    17. repec:plo:pbio00:2005561 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Taavi Päll & Hannes Luidalepp & Tanel Tenson & Ülo Maiväli, 2023. "A field-wide assessment of differential expression profiling by high-throughput sequencing reveals widespread bias," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(3), pages 1-27, March.
    19. Inga Patarčić & Jadranka Stojanovski, 2022. "Adoption of Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines across Journals," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-10, November.
    20. repec:plo:pone00:0223758 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Younes Saidani & Florian Dumpert & Christian Borgs & Alexander Brand & Andreas Nickl & Alexandra Rittmann & Johannes Rohde & Christian Salwiczek & Nina Storfinger & Selina Straub, 2023. "Qualitätsdimensionen maschinellen Lernens in der amtlichen Statistik [Quality Dimensions of Machine Learning in Official Statistics]," AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv, Springer;Deutsche Statistische Gesellschaft - German Statistical Society, vol. 17(3), pages 253-303, December.
    22. Michler, Jeffrey D. & Josephson, Anna & Kilic, Talip & Murray, Siobhan, 2022. "Privacy protection, measurement error, and the integration of remote sensing and socioeconomic survey data," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    23. repec:osf:socarx:2b9dc_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    24. repec:plo:pone00:0166733 is not listed on IDEAS
    25. Nasser Lubega & Abigail Anderson & Nicole C Nelson, 2023. "Experience of irreproducibility as a risk factor for poor mental health in biomedical science doctoral students: A survey and interview-based study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(11), pages 1-19, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    NSF Awards Nos. 1916505; 1922658; 1934405; NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Grant No. DGE-2039655;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C1 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:120493. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.