Counterfactual Situation Testing: Uncovering Discrimination under Fairness given the Difference (2302.11944v3)
Abstract: 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 intuitive 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 of Thanh et al. (2011) by operationalizing the notion of fairness given the difference using counterfactual reasoning. For any complainant, we find and compare similar protected and non-protected instances in the dataset used by the classifier to construct a control and test group, where a difference between the decision outcomes of the two groups implies potential individual discrimination. Unlike situation testing, which builds both groups around the complainant, we build the test group on the complainant's counterfactual generated using causal knowledge. The counterfactual is intended to reflect how the protected attribute when changed affects the seemingly neutral attributes used by the classifier, which is taken for granted in many frameworks for discrimination. Under CST, we compare similar individuals within each group but dissimilar individuals across both groups due to the possible difference between the complainant and its counterfactual. Evaluating our framework on two classification scenarios, we show that it uncovers a greater number of cases than situation testing, even when the classifier satisfies the counterfactual fairness condition of Kusner et al. (2017).
- Jeffrey S Adler. 2019. Murder in New Orleans: the creation of Jim Crow policing. University of Chicago Press.
- Automated Test Generation to Detect Individual Discrimination in AI Models. CoRR abs/1809.03260 (2018).
- Joshua D Angrist and Jörn-Steffen Pischke. 2008. Mostly Harmless Econometrics. Princeton University Press.
- Machine Bias. ProPublica (2016).
- Susan Athey and Guido W Imbens. 2019. Machine learning methods that economists should know about. Annual Review of Economics 11 (2019), 685–725.
- Solon Barocas and Andrew D Selbst. 2016. Big data’s disparate impact. California Law Review 104, 3 (2016), 671–732.
- Marc Bendick. 2007. Situation Testing for Employment Discrimination in the United States of America. Horizons stratégiques 3, 5 (2007), 17–39.
- Marianne Bertrand and Esther Duflo. 2017. Field Experiments on Discrimination. Handbook of Economic Field Experiments 1 (2017), 309–393.
- Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2004. Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination. The American Economic Review 94, 4 (2004), 991–1013.
- FlipTest: fairness testing via optimal transport. In FAT*. ACM, 111–121.
- Eduardo Bonilla-Silva. 1997. Rethinking Racism: Toward a structural interpretation. American Sociological Review (1997), 465–480.
- Alycia N. Carey and Xintao Wu. 2022. The Causal Fairness Field Guide: Perspectives From Social and Formal Sciences. Frontiers Big Data 5 (2022), 892837.
- Silvia Chiappa. 2019. Path-Specific Counterfactual Fairness. In AAAI. AAAI Press, 7801–7808.
- Fair regression with Wasserstein barycenters. In NeurIPS.
- Evgenii Chzhen and Nicolas Schreuder. 2022. A minimax framework for quantifying risk-fairness trade-off in regression. The Annals of Statistics 50, 4 (2022), 2416–2442.
- Jacob Cohen. 2013. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
- Caroline Criado-Perez. 2019. Invisible Women. Vintage.
- Alexander D’Amour. 2019. On Multi-Cause Causal Inference with Unobserved Confounding: Counterexamples, Impossibility, and Alternatives. CoRR abs/1902.10286 (2019).
- Jeffrey Dastin. 2018. Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women. Reuters (2018).
- Fairness through awareness. In ITCS. ACM, 214–226.
- European Commission. 2021. The Artificial Intelligence Act. https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/. Accessed on January 2nd, 2023.
- Michael Fix and Raymond J. Struyk. 1993. Clear and Convincing Evidence: Measurement of Discrimination in America. Urban Institute Press.
- European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and Council of Europe. 2018. Handbook on European non-discrimination law. https://fra.europa.eu. Downloaded in 2023..
- S. R. Foster. 2004. Causation in antidiscrimination law: Beyond intent versus impact. Houston Law Review 41, 5 (2004), 1469–1548.
- Fairness testing: testing software for discrimination. In ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE. ACM, 498–510.
- Claudia Goldin and Cecilia Rouse. 2000. Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of ”Blind” Auditions on Female Musicians. American Economic Review 90, 4 (September 2000), 715–741.
- Philipp Hacker. 2018. Teaching fairness to artificial intelligence: Existing and novel strategies against algorithmic discrimination under EU law. Common Market Law Review 55, 4 (2018).
- Towards a critical race methodology in algorithmic fairness. In FAT*. ACM, 501–512.
- The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction. Vol. 2. Springer.
- James J Heckman. 1998. Detecting Discrimination. Journal of Economic Perspectives 12, 2 (1998), 101–116.
- Melissa Heikkila. 2022. Dutch scandal serves as a warning for Europe over risks of using algorithms. POLITICO (2022).
- Lily Hu and Issa Kohler-Hausmann. 2020. What’s sex got to do with machine learning?. In FAT*. ACM, 513.
- Algorithmic Recourse: from Counterfactual Explanations to Interventions. In FAccT. ACM, 353–362.
- Atoosa Kasirzadeh and Andrew Smart. 2021. The Use and Misuse of Counterfactuals in Ethical Machine Learning. In FAccT. ACM, 228–236.
- The Sensitivity of Counterfactual Fairness to Unmeasured Confounding. In UAI (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 115). AUAI Press, 616–626.
- Avoiding Discrimination through Causal Reasoning. In NIPS. 656–666.
- Discrimination in the Age of Algorithms. CoRR abs/1902.03731 (2019).
- Issa Kohler-Hausmann. 2018. Eddie Murphy and the Dangers of Counterfactual Causal Thinking about Detecting Racial Discrimination. Nw. UL Rev. 113 (2018), 1163.
- Counterfactual Fairness. In NIPS. 4066–4076.
- Causal Effect Inference with Deep Latent-Variable Models. In NIPS. 6446–6456.
- Survey on Causal-based Machine Learning Fairness Notions. CoRR abs/2010.09553 (2020).
- Ron Mallon. 2007. A field guide to social construction. Philosophy Compass 2, 1 (2007), 93–108.
- Bayesian sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding in observational studies. Statistics in Medicine 26, 11 (2007), 2331–2347.
- Deirdre Mulligan. 2022. Invited Talk: Fairness and Privacy. https://www.afciworkshop.org/afcp2022. At the NeurIPS 2022 Workshop on Algorithmic Fairness through the Lens of Causality and Privacy..
- Thomas B Nachbar. 2021. Algorithmic fairness, algorithmic discrimination. Florida State University Law Review 48 (2021), 50.
- Judea Pearl. 2009. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
- Causal Inference in Statistics: A Primer. John Wiley & Sons.
- Discrimination-aware data mining. In KDD. ACM, 560–568.
- Elements of Causal Inference: Foundations and Learning Algorithms. The MIT Press.
- Drago Plecko and Elias Bareinboim. 2022. Causal Fairness Analysis. CoRR abs/2207.11385 (2022).
- Causal inference for social discrimination reasoning. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 54, 2 (2020), 425–437.
- Andrea Romei and Salvatore Ruggieri. 2014. A multidisciplinary survey on discrimination analysis. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 29, 5 (2014), 582–638.
- Dan-Olof Rooth. 2021. Correspondence testing studies. IZA World of Labor 58 (2021).
- Isabelle Rorive. 2009. Proving Discrimination Cases: The Role of Situation Testing. Centre for Equal Rights and MPG (2009). https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/library-document/proving-discrimination-cases-role-situation-testing_en
- Evan K. Rose. 2022. A Constructivist Perspective on Empirical Discrimination Research. Working Manuscript (2022). https://ekrose.github.io/files/constructivism.pdf
- Richard Rothstein. 2017. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How our Government Segregated America. Liveright Publishing.
- Can We Trust Fair-AI?. In AAAI. AAAI Press, 15421–15430.
- Data mining for discrimination discovery. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data 4, 2 (2010), 9:1–9:40.
- When Worlds Collide: Integrating Different Counterfactual Assumptions in Fairness. In NIPS. 6414–6423.
- Eric C Schneider. 2008. Smack: Heroin and the American city. University of Pennsylvania Press.
- Maya Sen and Omar Wasow. 2016. Race as a bundle of sticks: Designs that estimate effects of seemingly immutable characteristics. Annual Review of Political Science 19, 1 (2016), 499–522.
- k-NN as an implementation of situation testing for discrimination discovery and prevention. In KDD. ACM, 502–510.
- Michael Carl Tschantz. 2022. What is Proxy Discrimination?. In FAccT. ACM, 1993–2003.
- Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the GDPR. Harv. JL & Tech. 31 (2017), 841.
- White House. 2022. Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights/. Accessed on January 2nd, 2023.
- Linda F Wightman. 1998. LSAC national longitudinal bar passage study. Law School Admission Council.
- D. Randall Wilson and Tony R. Martinez. 1997. Improved Heterogeneous Distance Functions. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 6 (1997), 1–34.
- Raphaële Xenidis. 2020. Tuning EU equality law to algorithmic discrimination: Three pathways to resilience. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 27, 6 (2020), 736–758.
- Causal Intersectionality and Fair Ranking. In FORC (LIPIcs, Vol. 192). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 7:1–7:20.
- Situation Testing-Based Discrimination Discovery: A Causal Inference Approach. In IJCAI. IJCAI/AAAI Press, 2718–2724.
Sponsor
Paper Prompts
Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.
Top Community Prompts
Collections
Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.