analiza aiqbench
This study reveals a critical dissociation between fairness interventions and explanation faithfulness in legal AI, showing that debiasing techniques can degrade the reliability of SHAP explanations without necessarily improving demographic outcomes. The findings underscore that changes in model interpretability do not automatically equate to improved fairness, necessitating direct evaluation of bias metrics rather than relying on explanation shifts as a proxy. For practitioners deploying LegalBERT in decision support systems, this highlights the need to decouple regularization strategies from explainability pipelines to maintain both equitable predictions and trustworthy reasoning traces.
SCM-based Fairness and Faithful Explainability for Legal Document Classification
arXiv:2610.00045v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Transformer models such as LegalBERT are increasingly used in legal decision support, raising concerns about both fairness and the transparency of model explanations. These properties are usually evaluated separately, leaving open whether a debiasing intervention that changes fairness also changes how faithfully explanations reflect model reasoning. This study investigates that relationship on the ECtHR alleged-violations corpus from LexGLUE. It compares a LegalBERT baseline with a fairness-regularized variant that penalizes stereotypical warmth and competence representations during fine-tuning. The evaluation covers predictive performance, demographic fairness, and SHAP explanation faithfulness across five random seeds. At the performance-optimal regularization strength, the intervention does not reduce demographic disparity. This null result holds across two fairness definitions and a conventional word-pair control on the gender axis. Classification performance is largely unchanged. However, the intervention consistently degrades explanation sufficiency across all five seeds and three thresholds. A shuffled-pair control reproduces this degradation while leaving performance and fairness unchanged, indicating that the effect arises from contrastive representational regularization rather than specifically from the warmth and competence structure. The results demonstrate a dissociation between fairness and explanation faithfulness: changes in explanation behavior do not necessarily indicate changes in fairness, and fairness must therefore be evaluated directly.
Abstract:Transformer models such as LegalBERT are increasingly used in legal decision support, raising concerns about both fairness and the transparency of model explanations. These properties are usually evaluated separately, leaving open whether a debiasing intervention that changes fairness also changes how faithfully explanations reflect model reasoning. This study investigates that relationship on the ECtHR alleged-violations corpus from LexGLUE. It compares a LegalBERT baseline with a fairness-regularized variant that penalizes stereotypical warmth and competence representations during fine-tuning. The evaluation covers predictive performance, demographic fairness, and SHAP explanation faithfulness across five random seeds. At the performance-optimal regularization strength, the intervention does not reduce demographic disparity. This null result holds across two fairness definitions and a conventional word-pair control on the gender axis. Classification performance is largely unchanged. However, the intervention consistently degrades explanation sufficiency across all five seeds and three thresholds. A shuffled-pair control reproduces this degradation while leaving performance and fairness unchanged, indicating that the effect arises from contrastive representational regularization rather than specifically from the warmth and competence structure. The results demonstrate a dissociation between fairness and explanation faithfulness: changes in explanation behavior do not necessarily indicate changes in fairness, and fairness must therefore be evaluated directly.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2610.00045 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.00045v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.00045 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 292 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

LiveLaw Supreme Court Half-Yearly Digest: January - June 2026 [Part 2]
livelaw.in · 13 sept. 2026

Hint-based CoT faithfulness evals still mostly work on Claude
LessWrong · 30 iul. 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · 18 sept. 2026

AI in healthcare: applications and best practices
Databricks · 24 iul. 2026