We present counterfactual situation testing (CST), a causal data mining framework for detecting individual discrimination in a dataset of classifier decisions. CST answers the 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 (ST) of Thanh et al. (2011) by operationalizing the notion of fairness given the difference via counterfactual reasoning. ST finds for each complainant similar protected and non-protected instances in the dataset; constructs, respectively, a control and test group; and compares the groups such that a difference in outcomes implies a potential case of individual discrimination. CST, instead, avoids this idealized comparison by establishing the test group on the complainant's generated counterfactual, which reflects how the protected attribute when changed influences other seemingly neutral attributes of the complainant. Under CST we test for discrimination for each complainant by comparing similar individuals within each group but dissimilar individuals across groups. We consider single (e.g., gender) and multidimensional (e.g., gender and race) discrimination testing. For multidimensional discrimination we study multiple and intersectional discrimination and, as feared by legal scholars, find evidence that the former fails to account for the latter kind. Using a k-nearest neighbor implementation, we showcase CST on synthetic and real data. Experimental results show that CST uncovers a higher number of cases than ST, even when the model is counterfactually fair. In fact, CST extends counterfactual fairness (CF) of Kusner et al. (2017) by equipping CF with confidence intervals.

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).