Astraea: Grammar-based Fairness Testing

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.02542v5
• Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 08:11:15 GMT
• Title: Astraea: Grammar-based Fairness Testing
• Authors: Ezekiel Soremekun and Sakshi Udeshi and Sudipta Chattopadhyay
• Abstract summary: We propose a grammar-based fairness testing approach (called ASTRAEA) ASTRAEA generates discriminatory inputs that reveal fairness violations in software systems. It also provides fault diagnosis by isolating the cause of observed software bias.
• Score: 0.5672132510411463
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Software often produces biased outputs. In particular, machine learning (ML) based software are known to produce erroneous predictions when processing discriminatory inputs. Such unfair program behavior can be caused by societal bias. In the last few years, Amazon, Microsoft and Google have provided software services that produce unfair outputs, mostly due to societal bias (e.g. gender or race). In such events, developers are saddled with the task of conducting fairness testing. Fairness testing is challenging; developers are tasked with generating discriminatory inputs that reveal and explain biases. We propose a grammar-based fairness testing approach (called ASTRAEA) which leverages context-free grammars to generate discriminatory inputs that reveal fairness violations in software systems. Using probabilistic grammars, ASTRAEA also provides fault diagnosis by isolating the cause of observed software bias. ASTRAEA's diagnoses facilitate the improvement of ML fairness. ASTRAEA was evaluated on 18 software systems that provide three major natural language processing (NLP) services. In our evaluation, ASTRAEA generated fairness violations with a rate of ~18%. ASTRAEA generated over 573K discriminatory test cases and found over 102K fairness violations. Furthermore, ASTRAEA improves software fairness by ~76%, via model-retraining.

Related papers

• Specification-Guided Repair of Arithmetic Errors in Dafny Programs using LLMs [84.30534714651093]
  We present an innovative APR tool for Dafny, a verification-aware programming language.<n>We localize faults through a series of steps, which include using Hoare Logic to determine the state of each statement within the program.<n>We evaluate our approach using DafnyBench, a benchmark of real-world Dafny programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-04T15:36:12Z)
• Meta-Fair: AI-Assisted Fairness Testing of Large Language Models [2.9632404823837777]
  Fairness is a core principle in the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems.<n>Current approaches to fairness testing in large language models (LLMs) often rely on manual evaluation, fixed templates, deterministics, and curated datasets.<n>This work aims to lay the groundwork for a novel, automated method for testing fairness in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-03T11:20:59Z)
• GenFair: Systematic Test Generation for Fairness Fault Detection in Large Language Models [0.12891210250935142]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in critical domains, yet they often exhibit biases inherited from training data, leading to fairness concerns.<n>This work focuses on the problem of effectively detecting fairness violations, especially intersectional biases that are often missed by existing template-based and grammar-based testing methods.<n>We propose GenFair, a metamorphic fairness testing framework that generates source test cases using equivalence partitioning, mutation operators, and boundary value analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T16:00:30Z)
• Are You Getting What You Pay For? Auditing Model Substitution in LLM APIs [60.881609323604685]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) accessed via black-box APIs introduce a trust challenge. Users pay for services based on advertised model capabilities. providers may covertly substitute the specified model with a cheaper, lower-quality alternative to reduce operational costs. This lack of transparency undermines fairness, erodes trust, and complicates reliable benchmarking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-07T03:57:41Z)
• Fairness Testing through Extreme Value Theory [7.980954450762595]
  We propose a novel fairness criterion called extreme counterfactual discrimination (ECD) ECD estimates the worst-case amounts of disadvantage in outcomes for individuals solely based on their memberships in a protected group. We present a randomized algorithm that samples a statistically significant set of points from the tail of ML outcome distributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-20T16:56:10Z)
• Metamorphic Debugging for Accountable Software [8.001739956625483]
  Translating legalese into formal specifications is one challenge. Lack of a definitive 'truth' for queries (the oracle problem) is another. We propose that these challenges can be tackled by focusing on relational specifications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-24T14:45:13Z)
• Editable Fairness: Fine-Grained Bias Mitigation in Language Models [52.66450426729818]
  We propose a novel debiasing approach, Fairness Stamp (FAST), which enables fine-grained calibration of individual social biases. FAST surpasses state-of-the-art baselines with superior debiasing performance. This highlights the potential of fine-grained debiasing strategies to achieve fairness in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-07T17:14:58Z)
• FairLay-ML: Intuitive Debugging of Fairness in Data-Driven Social-Critical Software [13.530748931794065]
  We present FairLay-ML, a tool to test and explain the fairness implications of data-driven solutions.<n>FairLay-ML visualizes the logic of datasets, trained models, and decisions for a given data point.<n>It incorporates counterfactual fairness testing that finds bugs beyond the development datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-01T16:13:54Z)
• A First Look at Fairness of Machine Learning Based Code Reviewer Recommendation [14.50773969815661]
  This paper conducts the first study toward investigating the issue of fairness of ML applications in the software engineering (SE) domain. Our empirical study demonstrates that current state-of-the-art ML-based code reviewer recommendation techniques exhibit unfairness and discriminating behaviors. This paper also discusses the reasons why the studied ML-based code reviewer recommendation systems are unfair and provides solutions to mitigate the unfairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-21T01:57:51Z)
• BiasTestGPT: Using ChatGPT for Social Bias Testing of Language Models [73.29106813131818]
  bias testing is currently cumbersome since the test sentences are generated from a limited set of manual templates or need expensive crowd-sourcing. We propose using ChatGPT for the controllable generation of test sentences, given any arbitrary user-specified combination of social groups and attributes. We present an open-source comprehensive bias testing framework (BiasTestGPT), hosted on HuggingFace, that can be plugged into any open-source PLM for bias testing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-14T22:07:57Z)
• Invalidator: Automated Patch Correctness Assessment via Semantic and Syntactic Reasoning [6.269370220586248]
  In this paper, we propose a novel technique to automatically assess the correctness of APR-generated patches via semantic and syntactic reasoning. We have conducted experiments on a dataset of 885 patches generated on real-world programs in Defects4J. Experiment results show that INVALIDATOR correctly classified 79% overfitting patches, accounting for 23% more overfitting patches being detected by the best baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-03T14:16:32Z)
• D-BIAS: A Causality-Based Human-in-the-Loop System for Tackling Algorithmic Bias [57.87117733071416]
  We propose D-BIAS, a visual interactive tool that embodies human-in-the-loop AI approach for auditing and mitigating social biases. A user can detect the presence of bias against a group by identifying unfair causal relationships in the causal network. For each interaction, say weakening/deleting a biased causal edge, the system uses a novel method to simulate a new (debiased) dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-10T03:41:48Z)
• Understanding Unfairness in Fraud Detection through Model and Data Bias Interactions [4.159343412286401]
  We argue that algorithmic unfairness stems from interactions between models and biases in the data. We study a set of hypotheses regarding the fairness-accuracy trade-offs that fairness-blind ML algorithms exhibit under different data bias settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-13T15:18:30Z)
• A Sandbox Tool to Bias(Stress)-Test Fairness Algorithms [19.86635585740634]
  We present the conceptual idea and a first implementation of a bias-injection sandbox tool to investigate fairness consequences of various biases. Unlike existing toolkits, ours provides a controlled environment to counterfactually inject biases in the ML pipeline. In particular, we can test whether a given remedy can alleviate the injected bias by comparing the predictions resulting after the intervention with true labels in the unbiased regime-that is, before any bias injection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-21T16:12:19Z)
• FairFil: Contrastive Neural Debiasing Method for Pretrained Text Encoders [68.8687509471322]
  We propose the first neural debiasing method for a pretrained sentence encoder, which transforms the pretrained encoder outputs into debiased representations via a fair filter network. On real-world datasets, our FairFil effectively reduces the bias degree of pretrained text encoders, while continuously showing desirable performance on downstream tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-11T02:01:14Z)
• BeFair: Addressing Fairness in the Banking Sector [54.08949958349055]
  We present the initial results of an industrial open innovation project in the banking sector. We propose a general roadmap for fairness in ML and the implementation of a toolkit called BeFair that helps to identify and mitigate bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-03T16:37:10Z)
• On the Robustness of Language Encoders against Grammatical Errors [66.05648604987479]
  We collect real grammatical errors from non-native speakers and conduct adversarial attacks to simulate these errors on clean text data. Results confirm that the performance of all tested models is affected but the degree of impact varies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-12T11:01:44Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.