Fairwashing: the risk of rationalization
Open accessAbstract
Black-box explanation is the problem of explaining how a machine learning model -- whose internal logic is hidden to the auditor and generally complex -- produces its outcomes. Current approaches for solving this problem include model explanation, outcome explanation as well as model inspection. While these techniques can be beneficial by providing interpretability, they can be used in a negative manner to perform fairwashing, which we define as promoting the false perception that a machine learning model respects some ethical values. In particular, we demonstrate that it is possible to systematically rationalize decisions taken by an unfair black-box model using the model explanation as well as the outcome explanation approaches with a given fairness metric. Our solution, LaundryML, is based on a regularized rule list enumeration algorithm whose objective is to search for fair rule lists approximating an unfair black-box model. We empirically evaluate our rationalization technique on black-box models trained on real-world datasets and show that one can obtain rule lists with high fidelity to the black-box model while being considerably less unfair at the same time.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Post-hoc XAI techniques can forge fairer explanations from truly unfair black-box models.
“The same goal has been recently pursued in [401], showing that post-hoc XAI techniques can forge fairer explanations from truly unfair black-box models.”
From Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI (2020) · cites this paper as [401]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 28 · Cited by 54
- Authors
- Aïvodji, U., Arai, H., Fortineau, O., Gambs, S., Hara, S., & Tapp, A.
- Affiliations
- Université du Québec à Montréal (CA)
- École Nationale Supérieure de Techniques Avancées (FR)
- The University of Osaka (JP)
- Mila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute (CA)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2019
- Pages
- 161-170
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1901.09749
- OpenAlex
- W2912477312
- Cited by
- 54
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- Espace ÉTS (ETS) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- International Conference on Machine Learning
- Funders
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
- Keywords
- black-box explanation, model explanation, model inspection, algorithmic fairness, fairness metrics, interpretability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review