跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.12592 · v1

Fairness in Explainable AI Narratives: Decomposing Social Disparities in LLM-Generated Explanations

首次提交 2026-11-09 23:42
版本更新 2026-11-09 23:42
雷达观测 2026-11-10 15:22
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to translate technical explainable AI (XAI) artefacts such as SHAP into explanatory narratives (XAINs) for lay users. In high-risk domains, these explanations are often the main resource through which individuals can understand and contest adverse decisions. Yet LLMs are known to reproduce social bias, even from proxy variables alone, and fairness in XAINs remains unstudied. Because XAINs are bound to a ground-truth artefact, fairness concerns not only what a narrative says and how, but also whether it is equally faithful across social groups. We introduce fairness in XAINs as a new field of research and propose a framework that generates narratives under three conditions (protected attribute disclosed, withheld, or counterfactually swapped), allowing five comparisons that pinpoint the cause of disparities. We apply it to adversely classified instances from four datasets in credit scoring, education and employment, generating narratives with five LLMs, and evaluate faithfulness, feature coverage and sentiment. We find significant disparities across all datasets, metric families and models, arising in two ways. Faithfulness disparities result from feature values: LLMs make plausible but false statements, triggered by values that are unequally distributed across social groups. Feature coverage and sentiment disparities stem from the protected attribute itself: once it is disclosed, LLMs give less explanation to, or frame more negatively the narratives of, groups that have historically been discriminated against or are stereotypically associated with worse outcomes. A more faithful model removes the faithfulness disparities, and withholding protected attributes mostly removes the others, but neither suffices on its own. Fairness in XAINs should therefore be audited separately from the predictive model and its XAI artefact.

作者备注:25 pages, 8 figures, 9 tables. Code, prompts, narratives and extractions available at https://github.com/WannesVandenBulck/fairxain

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-09 23:42 · 最新观测版本

Fairness in Explainable AI Narratives: Decomposing Social Disparities in LLM-Generated Explanations

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to translate technical explainable AI (XAI) artefacts such as SHAP into explanatory narratives (XAINs) for lay users. In high-risk domains, these explanations are often the main resource through which individuals can understand and contest adverse decisions. Yet LLMs are known to reproduce social bias, even from proxy variables alone, and fairness in XAINs remains unstudied. Because XAINs are bound to a ground-truth artefact, fairness concerns not only what a narrative says and how, but also whether it is equally faithful across social groups. We introduce fairness in XAINs as a new field of research and propose a framework that generates narratives under three conditions (protected attribute disclosed, withheld, or counterfactually swapped), allowing five comparisons that pinpoint the cause of disparities. We apply it to adversely classified instances from four datasets in credit scoring, education and employment, generating narratives with five LLMs, and evaluate faithfulness, feature coverage and sentiment. We find significant disparities across all datasets, metric families and models, arising in two ways. Faithfulness disparities result from feature values: LLMs make plausible but false statements, triggered by values that are unequally distributed across social groups. Feature coverage and sentiment disparities stem from the protected attribute itself: once it is disclosed, LLMs give less explanation to, or frame more negatively the narratives of, groups that have historically been discriminated against or are stereotypically associated with worse outcomes. A more faithful model removes the faithfulness disparities, and withholding protected attributes mostly removes the others, but neither suffices on its own. Fairness in XAINs should therefore be audited separately from the predictive model and its XAI artefact.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗