Causally Perturbed Fairness Testing
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
To mitigate unfair and unethical discrimination over sensitive features (e.g., gender, age, or race), fairness testing plays an integral role in engineering systems that leverage AI models to handle tabular data. A key challenge therein is how to effectively reveal fairness bugs under an intractable sample size using perturbation. Much current work has been focusing on designing the test sample generators, ignoring the valuable knowledge about data characteristics that can help guide the perturbation and hence limiting their full potential. In this paper, we seek to bridge such a gap by proposing a generic framework of causally perturbed fairness testing, dubbed CausalFT. Through causal inference, the key idea of CausalFT is to extract the most directly and causally relevant non-sensitive feature to its sensitive counterpart, which can jointly influence the prediction of the label. Such a causal relationship is then seamlessly injected into the perturbation to guide a test sample generator. Unlike existing generator-level work, CausalFT serves as a higher-level framework that can be paired with diverse base generators. Extensive experiments on 1296 cases confirm that CausalFT can considerably improve arbitrary base generators in revealing fairness bugs over 93% of the cases with acceptable extra runtime overhead. Compared with a state-of-the-art approach that ranks the non-sensitive features solely based on correlation, CausalFT performs significantly better on 64% cases while being much more efficient. Further, CausalFT can better improve bias resilience in nearly all cases.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Oct 2025.
Builds on
21 of 34 references.
References · 21
- 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,917
- 2018Mitigating Unwanted Biases with Adversarial Learningcited by 663
- 2017Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Artcited by 315
- 2017Fairness Testing: Testing Software for Discriminationcited by 126
- 2019On the Apparent Conflict Between Individual and Group Fairnesscited by 126
- 2018Automated Directed Fairness Testingcited by 78
- 2022Fairness Testing: A Comprehensive Survey and Analysis of Trendscited by 62
- 2020Do the Machine Learning Models on a Crowd Sourced Platform Exhibit Bias? An Empirical Study on Model Fairnesscited by 52
- 2021Towards Fair Classifiers Without Sensitive Attributes: Exploring Biases in Related Featurescited by 45
- 2021NeuronFair: Interpretable White-Box Fairness Testing through Biased Neuron Identificationcited by 42
- 2021Personalized Counterfactual Fairness in Recommendationcited by 38
- 2021Multi-Objectivizing Software Configuration Tuning (for a single performance concern)cited by 28
9 more
- 2022Fairness-aware Configuration of Machine Learning Librariescited by 28
- 2023Latent Imitator: Generating Natural Individual Discriminatory Instances for Black-Box Fairness Testingcited by 23
- 2022The Weights can be Harmful: Pareto Search versus Weighted Search in Multi-Objective Search-Based Software Engineeringcited by 17
- 2022Adaptive Fairness Improvement Based on Causality Analysiscited by 17
- 2024Predicting Configuration Performance in Multiple Environments with Sequential Meta-learningcited by 17
- 2023Predicting Software Performance with Divide-and-Learncited by 16
- 2020VerifyMed -- A blockchain platform for transparent trust in virtualized healthcare: Proof-of-conceptcited by 14
- 2024Adapting Multi-objectivized Software Configuration Tuningcited by 13
- 2022Trade-offs between Group Fairness Metrics in Societal Resource Allocationcited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.