Counterfactual Situation Testing: From Single to Multidimensional Discrimination

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.01267v2
• Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2025 08:09:21 GMT
• Title: Counterfactual Situation Testing: From Single to Multidimensional Discrimination
• Authors: Jose M. Alvarez, Salvatore Ruggieri,
• Abstract summary: We present counterfactual situation testing (CST), a causal data mining framework for detecting individual discrimination.<n>We consider single (e.g.,gender) and multidimensional (e.g.,gender and race) discrimination testing.
• Score: 22.596961524387233
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We present counterfactual situation testing (CST), a causal data mining framework for detecting individual discrimination in a dataset of classifier decisions. CST answers the question ``what would have been the model outcome had the individual, or complainant, been of a different protected status?'' It extends the legally-grounded situation testing (ST) of Thanh et al. (2011) by operationalizing the notion of "fairness given the difference" via counterfactual reasoning. ST finds for each complainant similar protected and non-protected instances in the dataset; constructs, respectively, a control and test group; and compares the groups such that a difference in model outcomes implies a potential case of individual discrimination. CST, instead, avoids this idealized comparison by establishing the test group on the complainant's generated counterfactual, which reflects how the protected attribute when changed influences other seemingly neutral attributes of the complainant. Under CST we test for discrimination for each complainant by comparing similar individuals within the control and test group but dissimilar individuals across these groups. We consider single (e.g.,~gender) and multidimensional (e.g.,~gender and race) discrimination testing. For multidimensional discrimination we study multiple and intersectional discrimination and, as feared by legal scholars, find evidence that the former fails to account for the latter kind. Using a k-nearest neighbor implementation, we showcase CST on synthetic and real data. Experimental results show that CST uncovers a higher number of cases than ST, even when the model is counterfactually fair. CST, in fact, extends counterfactual fairness (CF) of Kusner et al. (2017) by equipping CF with confidence intervals, which we report for all experiments.

Related papers

• Whence Is A Model Fair? Fixing Fairness Bugs via Propensity Score Matching [0.49157446832511503]
  We investigate whether the way training and testing data are sampled affects the reliability of fairness metrics. Since training and test sets are often randomly sampled from the same population, bias present in the training data may still exist in the test data. We propose FairMatch, a post-processing method that applies propensity score matching to evaluate and mitigate bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-23T19:28:30Z)
• Counterfactual Situation Testing: Uncovering Discrimination under Fairness given the Difference [26.695316585522527]
  We present counterfactual situation testing (CST), a causal data mining framework for detecting discrimination in classifiers. CST aims to answer in an actionable and meaningful way the question "what would have been the model outcome had the individual, or complainant, been of a different protected status?"
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-23T11:41:21Z)
• Measuring Equality in Machine Learning Security Defenses: A Case Study in Speech Recognition [56.69875958980474]
  This work considers approaches to defending learned systems and how security defenses result in performance inequities across different sub-populations. We find that many methods that have been proposed can cause direct harm, like false rejection and unequal benefits from robustness training. We present a comparison of equality between two rejection-based defenses: randomized smoothing and neural rejection, finding randomized smoothing more equitable due to the sampling mechanism for minority groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-17T16:19:26Z)
• Aleatoric and Epistemic Discrimination: Fundamental Limits of Fairness Interventions [13.279926364884512]
  Machine learning models can underperform on certain population groups due to choices made during model development and bias inherent in the data. We quantify aleatoric discrimination by determining the performance limits of a model under fairness constraints. We quantify epistemic discrimination as the gap between a model's accuracy when fairness constraints are applied and the limit posed by aleatoric discrimination.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-27T15:38:20Z)
• TESTSGD: Interpretable Testing of Neural Networks Against Subtle Group Discrimination [8.207802966970378]
  We propose TESTSGD, an interpretable testing approach which systematically identifies and measures hidden group discrimination. We evaluate TESTSGD on popular datasets including both structured data and text data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-24T06:26:06Z)
• Error Parity Fairness: Testing for Group Fairness in Regression Tasks [5.076419064097733]
  This work presents error parity as a regression fairness notion and introduces a testing methodology to assess group fairness. It is followed by a suitable permutation test to compare groups on several statistics to explore disparities and identify impacted groups. Overall, the proposed regression fairness testing methodology fills a gap in the fair machine learning literature and may serve as a part of larger accountability assessments and algorithm audits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-16T17:47:20Z)
• Statistical and Computational Phase Transitions in Group Testing [73.55361918807883]
  We study the group testing problem where the goal is to identify a set of k infected individuals carrying a rare disease. We consider two different simple random procedures for assigning individuals tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-15T16:38:50Z)
• Adversarial Attacks and Defense for Non-Parametric Two-Sample Tests [73.32304304788838]
  This paper systematically uncovers the failure mode of non-parametric TSTs through adversarial attacks. To enable TST-agnostic attacks, we propose an ensemble attack framework that jointly minimizes the different types of test criteria. To robustify TSTs, we propose a max-min optimization that iteratively generates adversarial pairs to train the deep kernels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-07T11:18:04Z)
• Statistical discrimination in learning agents [64.78141757063142]
  Statistical discrimination emerges in agent policies as a function of both the bias in the training population and of agent architecture. We show that less discrimination emerges with agents that use recurrent neural networks, and when their training environment has less bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-21T18:28:57Z)
• Nested Counterfactual Identification from Arbitrary Surrogate Experiments [95.48089725859298]
  We study the identification of nested counterfactuals from an arbitrary combination of observations and experiments. Specifically, we prove the counterfactual unnesting theorem (CUT), which allows one to map arbitrary nested counterfactuals to unnested ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-07T12:51:04Z)
• Unsupervised Feature Learning by Cross-Level Instance-Group Discrimination [68.83098015578874]
  We integrate between-instance similarity into contrastive learning, not directly by instance grouping, but by cross-level discrimination. CLD effectively brings unsupervised learning closer to natural data and real-world applications. New state-of-the-art on self-supervision, semi-supervision, and transfer learning benchmarks, and beats MoCo v2 and SimCLR on every reported performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-09T21:13:13Z)
• Two-Sample Testing on Ranked Preference Data and the Role of Modeling Assumptions [57.77347280992548]
  In this paper, we design two-sample tests for pairwise comparison data and ranking data. Our test requires essentially no assumptions on the distributions. By applying our two-sample test on real-world pairwise comparison data, we conclude that ratings and rankings provided by people are indeed distributed differently.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-21T20:51:09Z)

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.