The Road to Explainability is Paved with Bias: Measuring the Fairness of Explanations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning models in safety-critical settings like healthcare are often “blackboxes”: they contain a large number of parameters which are not transparent to users. Post-hoc explainability methods where a simple, human-interpretable model imitates the behavior of these blackbox models are often proposed to help users trust model predictions. In this work, we audit the quality of such explanations for different protected subgroups using real data from four settings in finance, healthcare, college admissions, and the US justice system. Across two different blackbox model architectures and four popular explainability methods, we find that the approximation quality of explanation models, also known as the fidelity, differs significantly between subgroups. We also demonstrate that pairing explainability methods with recent advances in robust machine learning can improve explanation fairness in some settings. However, we highlight the importance of communicating details of non-zero fidelity gaps to users, since a single solution might not exist across all settings. Finally, we discuss the implications of unfair explanation models as a challenging and understudied problem facing the machine learning community.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.067 | 0.422 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".