# What will it take to generate fairness-preserving explanations?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.13346 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.13346/

## Key facts

- Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 15 of its 22 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 24 Jun 2021.

## Builds on (most cited first, 15 of 15)

- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- ["Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.04938/) (2016)
- [Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.02413/) (2016)
- [Fooling LIME and SHAP: Adversarial Attacks on Post hoc Explanation Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.02508/) (2019)
- [On the (In)fidelity and Sensitivity for Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1901.09392/) (2019)
- [Problems with Shapley-value-based explanations as feature importance measures](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.11097/) (2020)
- [Evaluating and Aggregating Feature-based Model Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00631/) (2020)
- [On the Apparent Conflict Between Individual and Group Fairness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.06883/) (2019)
- [Reliable Post hoc Explanations: Modeling Uncertainty in Explainability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2008.05030/) (2020)
- ["How do I fool you?": Manipulating User Trust via Misleading Black Box Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.06473/) (2019)
- [Fairwashing: the risk of rationalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1901.09749/) (2019)
- [iFair: Learning Individually Fair Data Representations for Algorithmic Decision Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.01059/) (2018)
- [Beyond Expertise and Roles: A Framework to Characterize the Stakeholders of Interpretable Machine Learning and their Needs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.09824/) (2021)
- [Machine Learning Explainability for External Stakeholders](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.05408/) (2020)
- [Epistemic values in feature importance methods: Lessons from feminist epistemology](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.12737/) (2021)

## Built on by (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [The Road to Explainability is Paved with Bias: Measuring the Fairness of Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.03295/) (2022)
- [What Makes a Good Explanation?: A Harmonized View of Properties of Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.05667/) (2022)
- [Helpful or Harmful Data? Fine-tuning-free Shapley Attribution for Explaining Language Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04606/) (2024)
- [Understanding Disparities in Post Hoc Machine Learning Explanation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.14539/) (2024)
- [SoK: Taming the Triangle -- On the Interplays between Fairness, Interpretability and Privacy in Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.16191/) (2023)
- [Fairness of Explanations in Artificial Intelligence (AI): A Unifying Framework, Axioms, and Future Direction toward Responsible AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.09852/) (2026)
- [Tensions Between the Proxies of Human Values in AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.07508/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

In situations where explanations of black-box models may be useful, the fairness of the black-box is also often a relevant concern. However, the link between the fairness of the black-box model and the behavior of explanations for the black-box is unclear. We focus on explanations applied to tabular datasets, suggesting that explanations do not necessarily preserve the fairness properties of the black-box algorithm. In other words, explanation algorithms can ignore or obscure critical relevant properties, creating incorrect or misleading explanations. More broadly, we propose future research directions for evaluating and generating explanations such that they are informative and relevant from a fairness perspective.