Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Exploring How Machine Learning Practitioners (Try To) Use Fairness Toolkits

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2205.06922 v2 pith:2NZIH7JS submitted 2022-05-13 cs.HC cs.AIcs.CYcs.LG

classification cs.HCcs.AIcs.CYcs.LG
keywords toolkitsfairnesspractitionersaddressbetterconductedfindingsopen-source
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent years have seen the development of many open-source ML fairness toolkits aimed at helping ML practitioners assess and address unfairness in their systems. However, there has been little research investigating how ML practitioners actually use these toolkits in practice. In this paper, we conducted the first in-depth empirical exploration of how industry practitioners (try to) work with existing fairness toolkits. In particular, we conducted think-aloud interviews to understand how participants learn about and use fairness toolkits, and explored the generality of our findings through an anonymous online survey. We identified several opportunities for fairness toolkits to better address practitioner needs and scaffold them in using toolkits effectively and responsibly. Based on these findings, we highlight implications for the design of future open-source fairness toolkits that can support practitioners in better contextualizing, communicating, and collaborating around ML fairness efforts.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools