SCM-based Fairness and Faithful Explainability for Legal Document Classification

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed not only to make decisions but to explain them. While AI decision fairness has been studied extensively, the fairness of AI explanations (whether LLMs justify decisions with equal quality, depth, tone, and linguistic sophistication across demographic groups) has received little attention. This paper introduces the Explanation Fairness Taxonomy (EFT), a framework comprising five formally defined, operationalizable dimensions: Verbosity Disparity, Sentiment Disparity, Epistemic Hedging Disparity, Decision-Linked Explanation Disparity, and Lexical Complexity Disparity. The taxonomy is instantiated in a controlled empirical study across 80 prompt templates, four consequential decision domains (hiring, medical triage, credit assessment, legal judgment), and five LLMs: GPT-4.1, Claude Sonnet, LLaMA 3.3 70B, GPT-OSS 120B, and Qwen3 32B. Two novel black-box metrics are introduced: the Hedging Density Score (HDS) and the Explanation Faithfulness Proxy (EFP), a heuristic indicator of decision-linked explanation variation. Across up to 400 prompt pairs, all eight EFT metrics show statistically significant disparities (Cohen's d ranging from small to large, all p_BH < 10^(-62)). Model choice is strongly associated with disparity magnitude: Qwen3 32B exhibits verbosity disparities 5.9x larger than LLaMA 3.3 70B. Two prompting-based mitigations show significant reductions in EFP disparity (78-95%) but no significant effect on stylistic dimensions, consistent with the hypothesis that stylistic explanation inequalities are encoded in pre-training distributions and are not resolvable through deployment-level instruction alone. A reproducible measurement framework is offered for explanation-level fairness auditing, with implications for AI regulation and deployment practice.

We study explanation fairness in hate speech detection. High classification performance does not always mean that a model produces equally plausible explanations for different demographic groups. Using the HateXplain dataset, we introduce Plausibility-EFG, a metric that measures the largest difference in explanation plausibility across demographic groups by comparing model-generated token attributions with human-annotated rationales. We evaluate BERT, RoBERTa, and ADV-RoBERTa, an adversarially trained model, using Integrated Gradients and SHAP. Our results show that ADV-RoBERTa improves classification performance and alignment between explanations and human rationales while reducing explanation disparities across demographic groups. These improvements are observed with both attribution methods and remain consistent across training, validation, and test splits. We also show that reducing prediction-level bias alone does not eliminate disparities in explanations, suggesting that predictive fairness and explanation fairness are related but distinct objectives. Finally, our fairness-performance analysis shows that stronger adversarial regularization can further reduce Plausibility-EFG, although it may cause a small decrease in macro-F1. Overall, this work presents explanation fairness as an important objective in hate speech moderation and introduces Fair-REF, a framework designed to reduce disparities in model explanations across demographic groups.

Zero-shot textual explanations aim to make image classifiers more transparent by probing their internal representations, without relying on task-specific supervision or LVLMs. However, existing methods often miss the features that truly drive the prediction, resulting in limited faithfulness to the evidence underlying the model's decision. To address this, we propose FaithTrace. Motivated by the idea that faithful explanations should describe concepts that strongly influence the prediction, FaithTrace directly measures how much the representation induced by the explanation changes the class logit. We introduce an influence score, computed as the directional derivative of the class logit along the text-induced direction in the classifier's feature space, and use it as a proxy for faithfulness. Moreover, we extend this influence score into quantitative evaluation metrics, helping fill the gap in faithfulness evaluation for textual explanations. Experiments show that FaithTrace yields more faithful explanations than baselines, facilitating a more accurate understanding of the model. The code will be publicly released.