Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces Interpretability Coverage Disparity (ICD), a metric to quantify unequal distribution of interpretability across demographic groups in hybrid interpretable models. The authors empirically demonstrate significant ICD across several hybrid interpretable learning methods and fairness benchmark datasets, particularly in intermediate transparency regimes. They further show that ICD can be mitigated using coverage-disparity constraints, with minimal impact on accuracy and sparsity, and even improving standard algorithmic fairness metrics in some cases.
Hybrid interpretable models, intended to offer the best of both worlds, can inadvertently create a new form of unfairness by systematically denying certain demographic groups access to interpretable decisions.
Hybrid interpretable models combine a transparent component with a black-box model by assigning some examples to the former and deferring the rest to the latter. While this design enables flexible tradeoffs between accuracy and interpretability, it also raises a distinct procedural fairness concern: some demographic groups may systematically receive interpretable decisions, while others are disproportionately routed to a black box. We formalize this issue as Interpretability Coverage Disparity (ICD), a demographic-parity-style measure applied to the routing decision of hybrid interpretable models. Using tools from predictive multiplicity, we study ICD across four hybrid interpretable learning methods, three standard fairness benchmark datasets, and multiple sensitive attributes. Our experiments reveal substantial ICD in intermediate transparency regimes, where both the interpretable and black-box components are actively used. We further show that simple coverage-disparity constraints can significantly reduce ICD in exact hybrid learning methods, with marginal impact on accuracy and sparsity. In several settings, ICD mitigation also improves standard algorithmic fairness metrics. These results show that hybrid interpretable models should be audited not only for predictive fairness, but also for how they allocate interpretability across individuals and groups.