Gender Bias in Explainability: Investigating Performance Disparity in Post-hoc Methods
This addresses fairness issues in explainability for high-stakes applications, highlighting a critical oversight in regulatory frameworks.
The paper investigates gender bias in post-hoc explainability methods, finding significant disparities in faithfulness, robustness, and complexity across three tasks and five language models, even with unbiased training data.
While research on applications and evaluations of explanation methods continues to expand, fairness of the explanation methods concerning disparities in their performance across subgroups remains an often overlooked aspect. In this paper, we address this gap by showing that, across three tasks and five language models, widely used post-hoc feature attribution methods exhibit significant gender disparity with respect to their faithfulness, robustness, and complexity. These disparities persist even when the models are pre-trained or fine-tuned on particularly unbiased datasets, indicating that the disparities we observe are not merely consequences of biased training data. Our results highlight the importance of addressing disparities in explanations when developing and applying explainability methods, as these can lead to biased outcomes against certain subgroups, with particularly critical implications in high-stakes contexts. Furthermore, our findings underscore the importance of incorporating the fairness of explanations, alongside overall model fairness and explainability, as a requirement in regulatory frameworks.