CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 171Ethics and Social Impacts of AIExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 49 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

FairTest: Discovering Unwarranted Associations in Data-Driven Applications

Open access
Tramèr, Florian, Atlidakis, Vaggelis, Geambasu, Roxana, Hsu, Daniel, Hubaux, Jean-Pierre, Humbert, Mathias, Juels, Ari, Lin, Huang·2015·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1510.02377arXiv 1510.02377
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In a world where traditional notions of privacy are increasingly challenged by the myriad companies that collect and analyze our data, it is important that decision-making entities are held accountable for unfair treatments arising from irresponsible data usage. Unfortunately, a lack of appropriate methodologies and tools means that even identifying unfair or discriminatory effects can be a challenge in practice. We introduce the unwarranted associations (UA) framework, a principled methodology for the discovery of unfair, discriminatory, or offensive user treatment in data-driven applications. The UA framework unifies and rationalizes a number of prior attempts at formalizing algorithmic fairness. It uniquely combines multiple investigative primitives and fairness metrics with broad applicability, granular exploration of unfair treatment in user subgroups, and incorporation of natural notions of utility that may account for observed disparities. We instantiate the UA framework in FairTest, the first comprehensive tool that helps developers check data-driven applications for unfair user treatment. It enables scalable and statistically rigorous investigation of associations between application outcomes (such as prices or premiums) and sensitive user attributes (such as race or gender). Furthermore, FairTest provides debugging capabilities that let programmers rule out potential confounders for observed unfair effects. We report on use of FairTest to investigate and in some cases address disparate impact, offensive labeling, and uneven rates of algorithmic error in four data-driven applications. As examples, our results reveal subtle biases against older populations in the distribution of error in a predictive health application and offensive racial labeling in an image tagger.

Overview

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1510.02377

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 50 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [24][24] P. Bickel, E. Hammel, and J. O'Connell, 'Sex bias in graduate admissions: Data from Berkeley,' Science , vol. 187, no. 4175, pp. 398-404, 1975. -
  2. [29][29] B. Liu, A. Sheth, U. Weinsberg, J. Chandrashekar, and R. Govindan, 'AdReveal: improving transparency into online targeted advertising,' in HotNets-XII . ACM, Nov. 2013. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Tramèr, F., Atlidakis, V., Geambasu, R., Hsu, D., Hubaux, J.-P., Humbert, M., Juels, A., & Lin, H.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH)
  • Saarland University (DE)
  • Jacobs Institute (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2015
Pages
401-416
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1510.02377
arXiv
1510.02377
OpenAlex
W2964116855
Cited by
171
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 4
FWCI
37.48
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Keywords
algorithmic fairness, algorithmic bias detection, indirect discrimination, sensitive attributes, fairness metrics, data-driven applications, image tagging

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