Abstract

As post hoc explanation methods are increasingly being leveragedto explain complex models in high-stakes settings, it becomes critical to ensure that the quality of the resulting explanations is consistently high across all subgroups of a population. For instance, it should not be the case that explanations associated with instances belonging to, e.g., women, are less accurate than those associated with other genders. In this work, we initiate the study of identifying group-based disparities in explanation quality. To this end, we first outline several key properties that contribute to explanation quality—namely, fidelity (accuracy), stability, consistency, and sparsity—and discuss why and how disparities in these properties can be particularly problematic. We then propose an evaluation framework which can quantitatively measure disparities in the quality of explanations. Using this framework, we carry out an empirical analysis with three datasets, six post hoc explanation methods, and different model classes to understand if and when group-based disparities in explanation quality arise. Our results indicate that such disparities are more likely to occur when the models being explained are complex and non-linear. We also observe that certain post hoc explanation methods (e.g., Integrated Gradients, SHAP) are more likely to exhibit disparities. Our work sheds light on previously unexplored ways in which explanation methods may introduce unfairness in real world decision making.