mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

From Expectation to Habit: Why Do Software Practitioners Adopt Fairness Toolkits?

arXiv 2412.13846 ↗First posted 18 Dec 2024cs.SE cs.AIcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

As the adoption of machine learning (ML) systems continues to grow across industries, concerns about fairness and bias in these systems have taken center stage. Fairness toolkits, designed to mitigate bias in ML models, serve as critical tools for addressing these ethical concerns. However, their adoption in the context of software development remains underexplored, especially regarding the cognitive and behavioral factors driving their usage. As a deeper understanding of these factors could be pivotal in refining tool designs and promoting broader adoption, this study investigates the factors influencing the adoption of fairness toolkits from an individual perspective. Guided by the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2), we examined the factors shaping the intention to adopt and actual use of fairness toolkits. Specifically, we employed Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to analyze data from a survey study involving practitioners in the software industry. Our findings reveal that performance expectancy and habit are the primary drivers of fairness toolkit adoption. These insights suggest that by emphasizing the effectiveness of these tools in mitigating bias and fostering habitual use, organizations can encourage wider adoption. Practical recommendations include improving toolkit usability, integrating bias mitigation processes into routine development workflows, and providing ongoing support to ensure professionals see clear benefits from regular use.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 72 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Dec 2024.

Builds on

20 of 72 references.

References · 20

  1. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
  2. 2018Mitigating Unwanted Biases with Adversarial Learningcited by 663
  3. 2018Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?cited by 262
  4. 2019The What-If Tool: Interactive Probing of Machine Learning Modelscited by 207
  5. 2020Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 194
  6. 2022Bias Mitigation for Machine Learning Classifiers: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 125
  7. 2017Fairness Testing: Testing Software for Discriminationcited by 123
  8. 2021Bias in Machine Learning Software: Why? How? What to do?cited by 92
  9. 2018Automated Directed Fairness Testingcited by 77
  10. 2021Software Engineering for AI-Based Systems: A Surveycited by 68
  11. 2020Where Responsible AI meets Reality: Practitioner Perspectives on Enablers for shifting Organizational Practicescited by 38
  12. 2022Exploring How Machine Learning Practitioners (Try To) Use Fairness Toolkitscited by 33
8 more
  1. 2021Fairness Perceptions of Algorithmic Decision-Making: A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literaturecited by 27
  2. 2020LiFT: A Scalable Framework for Measuring Fairness in ML Applicationscited by 22
  3. 2021Fair Enough: Searching for Sufficient Measures of Fairnesscited by 14
  4. 2022AI Ethics Issues in Real World: Evidence from AI Incident Databasecited by 14
  5. 2024Investigating the Role of Cultural Values in Adopting Large Language Models for Software Engineeringcited by 5
  6. 2024A Catalog of Fairness-Aware Practices in Machine Learning Engineeringcited by 4
  7. 2021Do you really code? Designing and Evaluating Screening Questions for Online Surveys with Programmerscited by 3
  8. 2024Understanding Fairness in Software Engineering: Insights from Stack Exchangecited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.