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: algorithmic fairness, which targets equitable outcomes, and 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 criterion in its outputs while being profoundly unfair in its reasoning process. We refer to this as the procedural bias, and mitigating it requires treating the fairness of explanations as a distinct object of scientific study. To our knowledge, we provide the first unified theoretical and literature review of this emerging field and elucidate the drawbacks of post-hoc explainers in certifying explanation fairness. Our central contribution is a conditional invariance framework formalizing explanation fairness as the requirement that explanations should be indifferent regardless of the protected attributes P(E(X) ∈ · mid Xrel = xrel,, A = a) = P(E(X) ∈ · mid Xrel = xrel,, A = b) for all task-relevant x, a single principle from which all existing explanation fairness metrics emerge as partial operationalizations. We introduce a seven-dimensional taxonomy, identify three generative mechanisms of explanation inequity (representation-driven, explanation-model mismatch, actionability-driven), and propose a canonical six-step evaluation workflow for operationalizing explanation fairness audits in practice.