Cited by 94Logic, programming, and type systemsFormal Methods in VerificationSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques

FairSquare: probabilistic verification of program fairness

Open access
Albarghouthi, Aws, D'Antoni, Loris, Drews, Samuel, Nori, Aditya V.·2017·Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages

Abstract

With the range and sensitivity of algorithmic decisions expanding at a break-neck speed, it is imperative that we aggressively investigate fairness and bias in decision-making programs. First, we show that a number of recently proposed formal definitions of fairness can be encoded as probabilistic program properties. Second, with the goal of enabling rigorous reasoning about fairness, we design a novel technique for verifying probabilistic properties that admits a wide class of decision-making programs. Third, we present FairSquare, the first verification tool for automatically certifying that a program meets a given fairness property. We evaluate FairSquare on a range of decision-making programs. Our evaluation demonstrates FairSquare’s ability to verify fairness for a range of different programs, which we show are out-of-reach for state-of-the-art program analysis techniques.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3133904

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • These evaluation approaches present fairness as a dichotomous outcome: a model is fair, or it isn't, as opposed to quantifying how (un)fair a model is.

    “Similar to other evaluation approaches (e.g.[10]), these approaches present fairness as a dichotomous outcome: a model is fair, or it isn't, as opposed to quantifying how (un)fair a model is.”

    From Fairness in machine learning: A survey (2024) · cites this paper as [10]

  • ML Fairness Gym is part of Google's Open AI project, a simulation toolkit to study long-run impacts of ML decisions, and analyzes how algorithms that take fairness into consideration change the underlying data (previous classifications) over time.

    “ML Fairness Gym Part of Google's Open AI project, a simulation toolkit to study long-run impacts of ML decisions.5 Analyzes how algorithms that take fairness into consideration change the underlying data (previous classiications) over time (see e.g.[4,5,8,10,12]).”

    From Fairness in machine learning: A survey (2024) · cites this paper as [10]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 75 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Amit Datta, Michael Carl Tschantz, and Anupam Datta. 2015. Automated experiments on Ad privacy settings. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2015, 1 (2015), 92-112.
  2. Antonio Filieri, Corina S Păsăreanu, and Willem Visser. 2013. Reliability analysis in symbolic pathfinder. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE Press, 622-631.
  3. John Rawls. 2009. A theory of justice. Harvard university press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Albarghouthi, A., D'Antoni, L., Drews, S., & Nori, A. V.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
  • Microsoft Research (United Kingdom) (GB)
Venue
Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages
Published
2017-10-12
Volume
1
Issue
OOPSLA
Pages
1-30
ISSN
2475-1421 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2762833920
Cited by
94
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 1
FWCI
4.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages (publishedVersion)
Funders
NSF (1704117 and 1566015)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, programming, and type systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Formal Methods in Verification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
Keywords
probabilistic verification, algorithmic fairness, automated verification tools, algorithmic bias

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review