Discovering Unwarranted Associations in Data-Driven Applications with the FairTest Testing Toolkit: In today’s data-driven world, programmers routinely incorporate user data into complex algorithms, heuristics, and application pipelines. While often beneficial, this practice can have unintended and detrimental consequences, such as the discriminatory effects identified in Staples’ online pricing algorithm and the racially offensive labels recently found in Google’s image tagger. We argue that such effects are bugs that should be tested for and debugged in a manner similar to functionality, performance, and security bugs. We describe FairTest, a testing toolkit that detects unwarranted associations between an algorithm’s outputs (e.g., prices or labels) and user subpopulations, including protected groups (e.g., defined by race or gender). FairTest reports any statistically significant associations to programmers as potential bugs, ranked by their strength and likelihood of being unintentional, rather than necessary effects. We designed FairTest for ease of use by programmers and integrated it into the evaluation framework of SciPy, a popular library for data analytics. We used FairTest experimentally to identify unfair disparate impact, offensive labeling, and disparate rates of algorithmic error in six applications and datasets. As examples, our results reveal subtle biases against older populations in the distribution of error in a real predictive health application, and offensive racial labeling in an image tagger.

1. FairTest:
Discovering unwarranted associa4ons
in data-­‐driven applica4ons
Florian
Tramèr1,
Vaggelis
Atlidakis2,
Roxana
Geambasu2,
Daniel
Hsu2,
Jean-­‐Pierre
Hubaux1,
Mathias
Humbert3,
Ari
Juels4,
Huang
Lin1
1École
Polytechnique
Fédérale
de
Lausanne,
2Columbia
University,
3Saarland
University,
4Cornell
Tech
1

2. “Unfair” associa4ons + consequences
2

3. “Unfair” associa4ons + consequences
3
These
are
so#ware
bugs:
need
to
ac#vely
test
for
them
and
fix
them
(i.e.,
debug)
in
data-­‐driven
applicaQons…
just
as
with
func#onality,
performance,
and
reliability
bugs.

4. Limits of preventa4ve measures
What
doesn’t
work:
• Hide
protected
aSributes
from
data-­‐driven
applicaQon.
• Aim
for
staQsQcal
parity
w.r.t.
protected
classes
and
service
output.
Foremost
challenge
is
to
even
detect
these
unwarranted
associaQons.
4

5. FairTest: a tes4ng suite for data-­‐driven apps
race,
gender,
…
zip
code,
job,
…
qualificaQons,
…
Protected
vars.
Context
vars.
FairTest
AssociaQon
bug
report
for
developer
Explanatory
vars.
Data-­‐driven
applicaQon
User
inputs
ApplicaQon
outputs
• Finds
context-­‐specific
associaQons
between
protected
variables
and
applicaQon
outputs
• Bug
report
ranks
findings
by
assoc.
strength
and
affected
pop.
size
locaQon,
click,
…
prices,
tags,
…
5

6. A data-­‐driven approach
Core
of
FairTest
is
based
on
staQsQcal
machine
learning
FairTest
Find
context-­‐specific
associaQons
StaQsQcally
validate
associaQons
Sta4s4cal
machine
learning
internals:
• top-­‐down
spaQal
parQQoning
algorithm
• confidence
intervals
for
assoc.
metrics
• …
Training
data
Test
data
Ideally
sampled
from
relevant
user
populaQon
This is a confidential draft. Please do not redistribute. 7 CONCLUSION
Report of associations of O=Labels on Si=Race:
Global Population of size 1,324
* Labels associated with Race=Black:
Label Black White DIFF p-value
Cart 4% 0% [0.0137,0.0652] 3.31e-05
Drum 4% 0% [0.0095,0.0604] 3.83e-04
Helmet 8% 3% [0.0096,0.0888] 2.34e-03
Cattle 2% 0% [0.0037,0.0432] 4.73e-03
* Labels associated with Race=White:
Label Black White DIFF p-value
Face Powder 1% 10% [-0.1339,-0.0525] 5.60e-12
Maillot 4% 15% [-0.1590,-0.0575] 3.46e-10
Person 96% 99% [-0.0563,-0.0042] 6.06e-03
Lipstick 1% 4% [-0.0622,-0.0034] 1.03e-02
Fig. 9: Racial Label Associations in the Image Tagger. Shows par-
tial report of a Discovery (top k=35); the four most strongly associated
labels (for the binary difference metric DIFF) are shown for each race.
Fig.9 shows part of FairTest’s report. It lists the labels
most disparately applied to images of black people (first
table) and white people (second table); we show only
4 (of 35) labels per race. A developer could inspect
all top k labels and judge which ones deserve further
scrutiny. In Fig.9, the ‘cattle’ label might draw attention
due to its potentially negative connotation; upon inspec-
tion, we find that none of the tagged images depict farm
animals. Moreover, black people receive the ‘person’
tag less often, thus the model seems less accurate at de-
tecting them. Further work is needed to understand these
Report of associations of O=Income on Si=Race:
Global Population of size 24,421
p-value = 1.39e-53 ; NMI = [0.0063, 0.0139]
Income Asian Black ... White Total
<=50K 556(73%) 2061(88%) 15647(75%) 18640 (76%)
>50K 206(27%) 287(12%) 5238(25%) 5781 (24%)
Total 762 (3%) 2348(10%) ... 20885(86%) 24421(100%)
1. Subpopulation of size 341
Context = Age <= 42, Hours <= 55, Job: Fed-gov
p-value = 3.24e-03 ; NMI = [0.0085, 0.1310]
Income Asian Black ... White Total
<=50K 10(71%) 62(91%) 153(63%) 239 (70%)
>50K 4(29%) 6 (9%) 91(37%) 102 (30%)
Total 14 (4%) 68(20%) ... 244(72%) 341(100%)
2. Subpopulation of size 14,477
Context = Age <= 42, Hours <= 55
p-value = 7.50e-31 ; NMI = [0.0070, 0.0187]
Income Asian Black ... White Total
<=50K 362(79%) 1408(93%) 10113(83%) 12157 (84%)
>50K 97(21%) 101 (7%) 2098(17%) 2320 (16%)
Total 459 (3%) 1509(10%) ... 12211(84%) 14477(100%)
Report of associations of O=Income on Si=Gender:
Global Population of size 24,421
p-value = 1.44e-178 ; NMI = [0.0381, 0.0540]
Income Female Male Total
<=50K 7218(89%) 11422(70%) 18640 (76%)
>50K 876(11%) 4905(30%) 5781 (24%)
Total 8094(33%) 16327(67%) 24421(100%)
1. Subpopulation of size 1,371
Context = 9 <= Education <= 11, Age >= 47
p-value = 2.23e-35 ; NMI = [0.0529, 0.1442]
Income Female Male Total
<=50K 423(88%) 497(56%) 920 (67%)
Data
6

7. Example: healthcare applica4on
Predictor
of
whether
pa4ent
will
visit
hospital
again
in
next
year
(from
winner
of
2012
Heritage
Health
Prize
CompeQQon)
⇒
FairTest’s
finding:
strong
associaQons
between
age
and
predicQon
error
rate
AssociaQon
may
translate
to
quanQfiable
harms
(e.g.,
if
app
is
used
to
adjust
insurance
premiums)!
Hospital
re-­‐admission
predictor
age,
gender,
#
emergencies,
…
Will
paQent
be
re-­‐admiSed?
This is a confidential draft. Please do no
Report of associations of O=Abs. Error
Global Population of size 28,930
p-value = 3.30e-179 ; CORR = [0.2057, 0
1. Subpopulation of size 6,252
Context = Urgent Care Treatments >= 1
p-value = 1.85e-141 ; CORR = [0.2724, 0
7

8. Debugging with FairTest
Are
there
confounding
factors?
Do
associaQons
disappear
aher
condiQoning?
⇒
AdapQve
Data
Analysis!
Example:
the
healthcare
applicaQon
(again)
• EsQmate
predicQon
target
variance
• Does
this
explain
the
predictor’s
behavior?
• Yes,
parQally
FairTest
helps
developers
understand
&
evaluate
potenQal
associaQon
bugs.
of size 6,252
Care Treatments >= 1
141 ; CORR = [0.2724, 0.3492]
e for Health Predictions. Shows the global
population with highest effect size (correlation).
correlation between age and prediction error,
1 + number of visits). For each age-decade, we
ots (box from the 1st to 3rd quantile with a line
skers at 1.5 interquantile-ranges). The straight
* Low Confidence: Population of size 14,48
p-value = 2.27e-128 ; CORR = [0.1722, 0.
* High Confidence: Population of size 14,4
p-value = 2.44e-13 ; CORR = [0.0377, 0.0
Fig. 8: Error Profile for Health Predictions usin
confidence as an explanatory attribute. Shows correla
prediction error and user age, broken down by prediction
High
confidence
in
predic#on
8

9. Closing remarks
• Other
applica4ons
studied
using
FairTest
(hSp://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02377):
• Image
tagger
based
on
deep
learning
(on
ImageNet
data)
• Simple
movie
recommender
system
(on
MovieLens
data)
• SimulaQon
of
Staple’s
pricing
system
• Other
features
in
FairTest:
• Exploratory
studies
(e.g.,
find
image
tags
with
offensive
associaQons)
• AdapQve
data
analysis
(preliminary)
–
i.e.,
staQsQcal
validity
with
data
re-­‐use
• IntegraQon
with
SciPy
library
Developers
need
beDer
sta4s4cal
training
and
tools
to
make
beDer
sta4s4cal
decisions
and
applica4ons.
9

10. Example: Berkeley graduate admissions
Admission
into
UC
Berkeley
graduate
programs
(Bickel,
Hammel,
and
O’Connell,
1975)
Bickel
et
al’s
(and
also
FairTest’s)
findings:
gender
bias
in
admissions
at
university
level,
but
mostly
gone
aher
condiQoning
on
department
FairTest
helps
developers
understand
&
evaluate
potenQal
associaQon
bugs.
Graduate
admissions
commiSees
age,
gender,
GPA,
…
Admit
applicant?
10