Pith. sign in

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

arxiv 1809.03260 v1 pith:WOST4IBT submitted 2018-09-10 cs.AI

classification cs.AI
keywords discriminationindividualtechniquetestautomatedcasesdecisionsensure
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Counterfactual Situation Testing: From Single to Multidimensional Discrimination

    cs.LG 2025-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    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.

  2. Fairness Testing through Extreme Value Theory

    cs.SE 2025-01 reject novelty 7.0 of 10

    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.

Pith tools