We revisit the fairness notion of disparate impact for synthetic data generation (SDG), that assesses whether the utility of generated records is the same across sensitive groups. Our approach departs from existing work on fair SDG, that address the problem of correcting for undue biases in the observed distribution, hence redefining SDG as learning a distribution that is not that of the real data. By contrast, non-disparate impact is notably achieved when the synthetic and real distributions are the same. We expose reasons why SDG may fail to reach that solution and discuss why approximation and estimation errors occur and can be disparate across groups. We notably look into the expressive power of SDG methods relative to distribution complexity, sampling errors due to group proportions, and estimation errors induced by differential privacy mechanisms. We illustrate cases of disparate impact on both artificial and real-world data, focusing on SDG methods that rely on probabilistic graphical models. We also introduce a strategy of learning group-wise SDG models, that constitutes a simple baseline for analyzing and in some settings mitigating cases of disparate impact.
When a statistical agency or regulator releases synthetic data in place of sensitive records, it chooses the generator that produces the table, and can shape that generator so unfair pathways are absent. DECAF made this concrete on one non-private GAN: three fairness definitions become three sets of edge cuts on the generator's causal graph. Whether the mechanism belongs to DECAF, or to causal factorisation itself, was untested. We port all three definitions to nine generators from three unrelated families (marginals-based, GAN, and diffusion, each with differentially private variants), across three levels of formal privacy guarantee, over 2,520 matched-pair runs on Adult and COMPAS datasets. The mechanism transfers everywhere, and our new causal diffusion backbone yields the fairest release of any family we tested, at fidelity close to the marginals tier. Applying the cut barely moves fidelity, only costs a downstream classifier about 0.07 to 0.15 AUC on average, and adding privacy guarantees don't make the data less fair.
Machine learning models are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains, raising concerns about both privacy and fairness. Differential Privacy (DP) has become a gold standard for privacy-preserving data analysis, while fairness-aware mechanisms aim to mitigate discrimination against underrepresented groups. However, these objectives can conflict: DP often amplifies disparities across demographic groups, and little is known about whether established fairness interventions remain effective under DP constraints. In this work, we present, to our knowledge, the first systematic evaluation of fairness interventions on differentially private synthetic tabular data. Our benchmark centers on the Adaptive Iterative Mechanism (AIM), identified as the state-of-the-art marginal-based DP synthesizer (Cormode et al. 2025). We thus evaluate fairness interventions across four datasets, multiple group fairness metrics, and three categories of mitigation strategies (pre-processing, in-processing, and post-processing) under a wide range of privacy budgets. We compare four pipeline configurations: (Baseline) training on original data; (DP-only) training on DP synthetic data; (Fair-only) applying fairness mechanisms on original data; and (DP+Fair) combining fairness mechanisms with DP synthetic data. Our results demonstrate that while DP alone can degrade both utility and fairness, applying fairness interventions can partially restore equitable outcomes. Among them, post-processing methods tend to provide more stable fairness-utility trade-offs across privacy budgets and synthesizers, achieving strong fairness improvements while preserving competitive utility relative to other intervention stages. We release all code, data, and experimental artifacts in an open-source repository to ensure full reproducibility and to support future research on the privacy-fairness-utility trade-off.
This paper proposes a method of creating synthetic data (SD) that will have two important advantages for the user compared to other methods currently available. The first is transparency; unlike other methods, the person in receipt of the SD will know which of the relationships between variables in the original data will be approximately maintained in the SD. The second is a guarantee that the SD is derived from information that has already been judged to be free of disclosure risk. This is achieved by first defining and calculating the margins where relationships between variables will be maintained in the SD. Each margin will then be subject to statistical disclosure control (SDC) to the standards defined by the data custodian, e.g. top-coding and bottom-coding, combination of small categories and/or modifying small counts. Further adjustment of the curated margins is advised by coarsening all counts in the table to multiples of the disclosure limit. These adjusted margins are used to create SD by the Iterative Proportional Fitting (IPF) algorithm. The practical steps involved in creating such SD are illustrated using data from the 1901 Census of Scotland.