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.

Fairness in machine learning is a critical concern, yet most research has focused on classification tasks, leaving regression models underexplored. This paper introduces a Wasserstein projection-based framework for fairness testing in regression models, focusing on expectation-based criteria. We propose a hypothesis-testing approach and an optimal data perturbation method to improve fairness while balancing accuracy. Theoretical results include a detailed categorization of fairness criteria for regression, a dual reformulation of the Wasserstein projection test statistic, and the derivation of asymptotic bounds and limiting distributions. Experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate that the proposed method offers higher specificity compared to permutation-based tests, and effectively detects and mitigates biases in real applications such as student performance and housing price prediction.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used across multiple domains but continue to raise concerns regarding security and fairness. Beyond known attack vectors such as data poisoning and prompt injection, LLMs are also vulnerable to fairness bugs. These refer to unintended behaviors influenced by sensitive demographic cues (e.g., race or sexual orientation) that should not affect outcomes. Another key issue is hallucination, where models generate plausible yet false information. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has emerged as a strategy to mitigate hallucinations by combining external retrieval with text generation. However, its adoption raises new fairness concerns, as the retrieved content itself may surface or amplify bias. This study conducts fairness testing through metamorphic testing (MT), introducing controlled demographic perturbations in prompts to assess fairness in sentiment analysis performed by three Small Language Models (SLMs) hosted on HuggingFace (Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct, Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3, and Llama-3.1-Nemotron-8B), each integrated into a RAG pipeline. Results show that minor demographic variations can break up to one third of metamorphic relations (MRs). A detailed analysis of these failures reveals a consistent bias hierarchy, with perturbations involving racial cues being the predominant cause of the violations. In addition to offering a comparative evaluation, this work reinforces that the retrieval component in RAG must be carefully curated to prevent bias amplification. The findings serve as a practical alert for developers, testers and small organizations aiming to adopt accessible SLMs without compromising fairness or reliability.

This paper introduces PyFair, a formal framework for evaluating and verifying individual fairness of Deep Neural Networks (DNNs). By adapting the concolic testing tool PyCT, we generate fairness-specific path constraints to systematically explore DNN behaviors. Our key innovation is a dual network architecture that enables comprehensive fairness assessments and provides completeness guarantees for certain network types. We evaluate PyFair on 25 benchmark models, including those enhanced by existing bias mitigation techniques. Results demonstrate PyFair's efficacy in detecting discriminatory instances and verifying fairness, while also revealing scalability challenges for complex models. This work advances algorithmic fairness in critical domains by offering a rigorous, systematic method for fairness testing and verification of pre-trained DNNs.

Ensuring fairness in AI systems is critical, especially in high-stakes domains such as lending, hiring, and healthcare. This urgency is reflected in emerging global regulations that mandate fairness assessments and independent bias audits. However, procuring the necessary complete data for fairness testing remains a significant challenge. In industry settings, legal and privacy concerns restrict the collection of demographic data required to assess group disparities, and auditors face practical and cultural challenges in gaining access to data. In practice, data relevant for fairness testing is often split across separate sources: internal datasets held by institutions with predictive attributes, and external public datasets such as census data containing protected attributes, each providing only partial, marginal information. Our work seeks to leverage such available separate data to estimate model fairness when complete data is inaccessible. We propose utilising the available separate data to estimate a set of feasible joint distributions and then compute the set plausible fairness metrics. Through simulation and real experiments, we demonstrate that we can derive meaningful bounds on fairness metrics and obtain reliable estimates of the true metric. Our results demonstrate that this approach can serve as a practical and effective solution for fairness testing in real-world settings where access to complete data is restricted.

As AI becomes prevalent in high-risk domains and decision-making, it is essential to test for potential harms and biases. This urgency is reflected by the global emergence of AI regulations that emphasise fairness and adequate testing, with some mandating independent bias audits. However, procuring the necessary data for fairness testing remains a significant challenge. Particularly in industry settings, legal and privacy concerns restrict the collection of demographic data required to assess group disparities, and auditors face practical and cultural challenges in gaining access to data. Further, internal historical datasets are often insufficiently representative to identify real-world biases. This work focuses on evaluating classifier fairness when complete datasets including demographics are inaccessible. We propose leveraging separate overlapping datasets to construct complete synthetic data that includes demographic information and accurately reflects the underlying relationships between protected attributes and model features. We validate the fidelity of the synthetic data by comparing it to real data, and empirically demonstrate that fairness metrics derived from testing on such synthetic data are consistent with those obtained from real data. This work, therefore, offers a path to overcome real-world data scarcity for fairness testing, enabling independent, model-agnostic evaluation of fairness, and serving as a viable substitute where real data is limited.

The biases in artificial intelligence (AI) models can lead to automated decision-making processes that discriminate against groups and/or individuals based on sensitive properties such as gender and race. While there are many studies on diagnosing and mitigating biases in various AI models, there is little research on individual fairness in Graph Neural Networks (GNNs). Unlike traditional models, which treat data features independently and overlook their inter-relationships, GNNs are designed to capture graph-based structure where nodes are interconnected. This relational approach enables GNNs to model complex dependencies, but it also means that biases can propagate through these connections, complicating the detection and mitigation of individual fairness violations. This PhD project aims to develop a testing framework to assess and ensure individual fairness in GNNs. It first systematically reviews the literature on individual fairness, categorizing existing approaches to define, measure, test, and mitigate model biases, creating a taxonomy of individual fairness. Next, the project will develop a framework for testing and ensuring fairness in GNNs by adapting and extending current fairness testing and mitigation techniques. The framework will be evaluated through industrial case studies, focusing on graph-based large language models.

Fairness-aware learning aims to mitigate discrimination against specific protected social groups (e.g., those categorized by gender, ethnicity, age) while minimizing predictive performance loss. Despite efforts to improve fairness in machine learning, prior studies have shown that many models remain unfair when measured against various fairness metrics. In this paper, we examine whether the way training and testing data are sampled affects the reliability of reported fairness metrics. Since training and test sets are often randomly sampled from the same population, bias present in the training data may still exist in the test data, potentially skewing fairness assessments. To address this, we propose FairMatch, a post-processing method that applies propensity score matching to evaluate and mitigate bias. FairMatch identifies control and treatment pairs with similar propensity scores in the test set and adjusts decision thresholds for different subgroups accordingly. For samples that cannot be matched, we perform probabilistic calibration using fairness-aware loss functions. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach can (a) precisely locate subsets of the test data where the model is unbiased, and (b) significantly reduce bias on the remaining data. Overall, propensity score matching offers a principled way to improve both fairness evaluation and mitigation, without sacrificing predictive performance.

--Large Language Models (LLMs) have made significant strides in Natural Language Processing but remain vulnerable to fairness-related issues, often reflecting biases inherent in their training data. These biases pose risks, particularly when LLMs are deployed in sensitive areas such as healthcare, finance, and law. This paper introduces a metamorphic testing approach to systematically identify fairness bugs in LLMs. We define and apply a set of fairness-oriented metamorphic relations (MRs) to assess the LLaMA and GPT model, a state-of-the-art LLM, across diverse demographic inputs. Our methodology includes generating source and follow-up test cases for each MR and analyzing model responses for fairness violations. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of MT in exposing bias patterns, especially in relation to tone and sentiment, and highlight specific intersections of sensitive attributes that frequently reveal fairness faults. This research improves fairness testing in LLMs, providing a structured approach to detect and mitigate biases and improve model robustness in fairness-sensitive applications. Language models, particularly those of considerable size, have revolutionized numerous applications in natural language processing, from translation to content generation. As these models are increasingly integrated into applications that affect daily life, their reliability and fairness become paramount.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become foundational in modern language-driven applications, profoundly influencing daily life. A critical technique in leveraging their potential is role-playing, where LLMs simulate diverse roles to enhance their real-world utility. However, while research has highlighted the presence of social biases in LLM outputs, it remains unclear whether and to what extent these biases emerge during role-playing scenarios. In this paper, we introduce BiasLens, a fairness testing framework designed to systematically expose biases in LLMs during role-playing. Our approach uses LLMs to generate 550 social roles across a comprehensive set of 11 demographic attributes, producing 33,000 role-specific questions targeting various forms of bias. These questions, spanning Yes/No, multiple-choice, and open-ended formats, are designed to prompt LLMs to adopt specific roles and respond accordingly. We employ a combination of rule-based and LLM-based strategies to identify biased responses, rigorously validated through human evaluation. Using the generated questions as the benchmark, we conduct extensive evaluations of six advanced LLMs released by OpenAI, Mistral AI, Meta, Alibaba, and DeepSeek. Our benchmark reveals 72,716 biased responses across the studied LLMs, with individual models yielding between 7,754 and 16,963 biased responses, underscoring the prevalence of bias in role-playing contexts. To support future research, we have publicly released the benchmark, along with all scripts and experimental results.