TY - GEN
T1 - A Critical Survey on Fairness Benefits of Explainable AI
AU - Deck, Luca
AU - Schoeffer, Jakob
AU - De-Arteaga, Maria
AU - Kühl, Niklas
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 ACM.
PY - 2024/6/3
Y1 - 2024/6/3
N2 - In this critical survey, we analyze typical claims on the relationship between explainable AI (XAI) and fairness to disentangle the multidimensional relationship between these two concepts. Based on a systematic literature review and a subsequent qualitative content analysis, we identify seven archetypal claims from 175 scientific articles on the alleged fairness benefits of XAI. We present crucial caveats with respect to these claims and provide an entry point for future discussions around the potentials and limitations of XAI for specific fairness desiderata. Importantly, we notice that claims are often (i) vague and simplistic, (ii) lacking normative grounding, or (iii) poorly aligned with the actual capabilities of XAI. We suggest to conceive XAI not as an ethical panacea but as one of many tools to approach the multidimensional, sociotechnical challenge of algorithmic fairness. Moreover, when making a claim about XAI and fairness, we emphasize the need to be more specific about what kind of XAI method is used, which fairness desideratum it refers to, how exactly it enables fairness, and who is the stakeholder that benefits from XAI.
AB - In this critical survey, we analyze typical claims on the relationship between explainable AI (XAI) and fairness to disentangle the multidimensional relationship between these two concepts. Based on a systematic literature review and a subsequent qualitative content analysis, we identify seven archetypal claims from 175 scientific articles on the alleged fairness benefits of XAI. We present crucial caveats with respect to these claims and provide an entry point for future discussions around the potentials and limitations of XAI for specific fairness desiderata. Importantly, we notice that claims are often (i) vague and simplistic, (ii) lacking normative grounding, or (iii) poorly aligned with the actual capabilities of XAI. We suggest to conceive XAI not as an ethical panacea but as one of many tools to approach the multidimensional, sociotechnical challenge of algorithmic fairness. Moreover, when making a claim about XAI and fairness, we emphasize the need to be more specific about what kind of XAI method is used, which fairness desideratum it refers to, how exactly it enables fairness, and who is the stakeholder that benefits from XAI.
KW - algorithmic fairness
KW - critical survey
KW - Explainable AI
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85196633447
U2 - 10.1145/3630106.3658990
DO - 10.1145/3630106.3658990
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:85196633447
T3 - 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT 2024
SP - 1579
EP - 1595
BT - 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT 2024
PB - Association for Computing Machinery, Inc
CY - New York
T2 - 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT 2024
Y2 - 3 June 2024 through 6 June 2024
ER -