Shapley meets Rawls: an integrated framework for measuring and explaining unfairness

Fairness in decision-making processes is often quantified using probabilistic metrics. However, these metrics need not reflect the consequences of decisions for the affected individuals and groups. We develop a utility-based framework that incorporates these consequences into the assessment of fairness. Our main result shows that a decision-making process can satisfy $\varepsilon$-fairness while nevertheless being maximally unfair once the utilities associated with its outcomes are taken into account. To address applications in which information on false negatives is unavailable, we also formulate a reduced setting that retains the essential elements of the utility-based fairness assessment. We illustrate the framework through two applications: college admissions and credit-risk assessment. In both cases, probabilistic metrics may classify a decision-making process as approximately fair even though the corresponding utility outcomes are highly unequal. In the college-admissions example, our analysis shows that improving completion rates is necessary to achieve equality of utility across groups, while in the mortgage example, mitigating unfairness requires not only adjusting approval rates but also reducing the adverse consequences of default. These findings demonstrate that fairness assessments should account not only for the probabilities of different decisions but also for the consequences of those decisions.

Machine learning (ML) algorithms are increasingly deployed in high-stakes decision-making domains such as loan approvals, hiring, and recidivism predictions. While existing fairness metrics (e.g., statistical parity, equal opportunity) effectively quantify outcome-oriented disparities, they offer limited insight into the procedure or explanation behind biased decisions. To address this gap, we propose Group-level Explanation Stability Disparity (GESD), a procedural-oriented fairness metric that measures disparities in the stability, robustness, and sensitivity of model explanations across different subgroups in a protected category. %GESD is explainer-agnostic, model-agnostic, and extends the scope of fairness analyses to the level of explainability. We further integrate GESD into a multi-objective optimization framework that jointly optimizes for utility, outcome-based fairness, and explanation-based fairness called FEU (Fairness--Explainability--Utility). Empirical results on multiple benchmark datasets show that GESD effectively captures group-wise discrepancies in explanation quality, and that FEU improves both utility and fairness over state-of-the-art methods. By bridging outcome-based and explanation-based fairness, GESD offers a comprehensive tool for diagnosing and mitigating bias in predictive modeling. Our code and datasets are available on GitHub {\hyperlink{https://github.com/horlahsunbo/GESD}{https://github.com/horlahsunbo/GESD}}

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 $P(E(X) \in \cdot \mid X_\text{rel} = x_\text{rel},\, A = a) = P(E(X) \in \cdot \mid X_\text{rel} = x_\text{rel},\, A = b)$ 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.