REVIEW 2 cited by
Automated Test Generation to Detect Individual Discrimination in AI Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Dependability on AI models is of utmost importance to ensure full acceptance of the AI systems. One of the key aspects of the dependable AI system is to ensure that all its decisions are fair and not biased towards any individual. In this paper, we address the problem of detecting whether a model has an individual discrimination. Such a discrimination exists when two individuals who differ only in the values of their protected attributes (such as, gender/race) while the values of their non-protected ones are exactly the same, get different decisions. Measuring individual discrimination requires an exhaustive testing, which is infeasible for a non-trivial system. In this paper, we present an automated technique to generate test inputs, which is geared towards finding individual discrimination. Our technique combines the well-known technique called symbolic execution along with the local explainability for generation of effective test cases. Our experimental results clearly demonstrate that our technique produces 3.72 times more successful test cases than the existing state-of-the-art across all our chosen benchmarks.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Counterfactual Situation Testing: From Single to Multidimensional Discrimination
CST detects individual discrimination by comparing a complainant to similar counterfactual individuals generated from a causal model, and it shows that multiple discrimination testing misses intersectional discrimination.
-
Fairness Testing through Extreme Value Theory
The paper defines ECD as the difference in GEV location parameters between protected groups and claims it reveals that standard bias mitigators harm worst-case fairness in 35% of cases.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.