Fairness of Explanations in Artificial Intelligence (AI): A Unifying Framework, Axioms, and Future Direction toward Responsible AI
Machine learning algorithms are being used in high-stakes decisions, including those in criminal justice, healthcare, credit, and employment. The research community has responded with two largely independent research fields: \emph{algorithmic fairness}, which targets equitable outcomes, and \emph{explainable AI} (XAI), which targets interpretable reasoning. This survey identifies and maps a novel blind spot at their intersection, which is a model that can satisfy every standard fairness criterio
Record details
Published: 11 May 2026
Source: arXiv
Category: Research
Topics: Bias & fairness · Jobs & economy · Healthcare · Transparency
Retrieved: 14 July 2026
Related evidence
These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.
The Open-Box Fallacy: Why AI Deployment Needs a Calibrated Verification Regime
arXiv · 11 May 2026
Causal Fairness for Survival Analysis
arXiv · 12 May 2026
Do Fair Models Reason Fairly? Counterfactual Explanation Consistency for Procedural Fairness in Credit Decisions
arXiv · 12 May 2026
GESD: Beyond Outcome-Oriented Fairness
arXiv · 14 May 2026
FairHealth: An Open-Source Python Library for Trustworthy Healthcare AI in Low-Resource Settings
arXiv · 5 May 2026
EQUITRIAGE: A Fairness Audit of Gender Bias in LLM-Based Emergency Department Triage
arXiv · 5 May 2026
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (11 May 2026), “Fairness of Explanations in Artificial Intelligence (AI): A Unifying Framework, Axioms, and Future Direction toward Responsible AI,” evidence record 4603, https://ethics.ai/record/4603 (originally published by arXiv).
Use and limitations
This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.