Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Can Explainable AI Explain Unfairness? A Framework for Evaluating Explainable AI

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2106.07483 v1 pith:XMNIQ6IC submitted 2021-06-14 cs.CY cs.AIcs.LG

Can Explainable AI Explain Unfairness? A Framework for Evaluating Explainable AI

classification cs.CY cs.AIcs.LG
keywords toolsexplainableframeworkmodelbehaviorbiascapabilitiescreated
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Many ML models are opaque to humans, producing decisions too complex for humans to easily understand. In response, explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) tools that analyze the inner workings of a model have been created. Despite these tools' strength in translating model behavior, critiques have raised concerns about the impact of XAI tools as a tool for `fairwashing` by misleading users into trusting biased or incorrect models. In this paper, we created a framework for evaluating explainable AI tools with respect to their capabilities for detecting and addressing issues of bias and fairness as well as their capacity to communicate these results to their users clearly. We found that despite their capabilities in simplifying and explaining model behavior, many prominent XAI tools lack features that could be critical in detecting bias. Developers can use our framework to suggest modifications needed in their toolkits to reduce issues likes fairwashing.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. On Identifying Why and When Foundation Models Perform Well on Time-Series Forecasting Using Automated Explanations and Rating

    cs.LG 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0

    On four public datasets, Gradient Boosting with hand-built features beat Chronos, Llama, and ARIMA on most accuracy metrics, while Chronos only led on financial sMAPE.