Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 87 references

The Fair Lending Model: How the Longest-Running Algorithmic Fairness Programs Work in Practice

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-28 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Supervisory authority through examinations has driven fair lending fairness programs in U.S. financial institutions for decades.

desk verdict This is the first interview-based look at how banks actually run fair lending programs, and it points to supervisory exams as the main driver, though the sample leaves room for selection effects. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.02957 v2 pith:BTBD7G7R submitted 2026-06-01 cs.CY

Emily Black , Miranda Bogen , Logan Koepke , Solon Barocas , Wesley Deng , Mingwei Hsu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CY
keywords algorithmicfairnessfairlendingregulatorysupervisiondiscriminationfinancialinstitutionscompliancepracticescivilrightsenforcementexaminations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper provides the first detailed account of how banks and lenders have tested for and reduced algorithmic discrimination under existing fair lending rules. Interviews across the ecosystem show a consistent baseline of practices that prevent discrimination in lending decisions, though the exact testing methods and search for alternatives differ from firm to firm. Regulatory supervision stands out as the primary force that keeps these programs active and effective. The work contrasts this design with other areas of civil rights enforcement that lack equivalent oversight. It notes that the real-world results still hinge on how firms balance compliance against business pressures and legal uncertainties.

What carries the argument

Fair lending examinations by supervisory authorities, which enforce compliance and shape internal testing and mitigation processes.

What would settle it

A large-scale audit or survey of lending institutions that finds equivalent fairness testing and mitigation occurring in areas without supervisory examinations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Financial institutions have operated algorithmic fairness programs for decades under fair lending laws, maintaining a floor of discrimination-prevention practices largely absent elsewhere; the specifics of testing and mitigation vary, but fair lending examinations by supervisors have been the central driver of compliance, while program impact depends on navigating competing incentives, legal tensions, and regulatory uncertainty.

Load-bearing premise

The 35 interviews give a representative view of actual practices rather than just selected or idealized accounts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A baseline set of fairness practices exists in lending that does not appear in other domains without similar supervision.
  • The practical effect of these programs rises or falls based on how well they fit within business priorities and legal constraints.
  • Supervisory authority functions as a distinct regulatory tool compared with standard civil rights enforcement.
  • Recent proposals for addressing algorithmic discrimination omit this supervisory element.
  • Variation in firm-level methods shows that supervision sets a floor but does not dictate uniform procedures.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Domains such as employment screening or content moderation could develop comparable practices if given equivalent supervisory oversight.
  • Without ongoing examinations, fairness efforts may stay limited to minimal compliance rather than active search for better alternatives.
  • Policy efforts focused only on technical standards or self-reporting may miss the enforcement mechanism that has sustained lending programs.
  • The tension between regulatory demands and business incentives identified here is likely to appear in any new supervised fairness regime.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims to offer the first empirical account of how U.S. financial institutions implement algorithmic fairness programs under fair lending laws, based on 35 semi-structured interviews with participants across the ecosystem. It reports a baseline floor of fairness practices absent in other domains, wide variation in testing for discrimination and searching for less discriminatory alternatives, and identifies regulatory supervision via examinations as the key driver of compliance work. The central conclusion is that supervisory authority is a distinctive regulatory design feature that has successfully fostered fair lending practices, unlike other areas of civil rights law and recent algorithmic discrimination proposals.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper would provide valuable empirical grounding for algorithmic fairness research by documenting decades of real-world practice in lending. It explicitly credits the role of supervisory mechanisms in shaping compliance and contrasts this with policy approaches lacking such features, offering a concrete regulatory design insight that could inform broader algorithmic governance discussions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods section: The manuscript provides no details on the sampling strategy, recruitment process, or criteria for selecting the 35 interviewees, nor on the qualitative analysis procedures (e.g., coding framework, inter-coder reliability, or member checking). This directly affects the load-bearing claim that supervision is the 'key driver' across the ecosystem, as the sample may over-represent institutions where examinations are salient due to access or willingness to participate.
  2. [Findings] Findings/Discussion: The assertion that supervisory authority has 'successfully fostered' fair lending practices relies solely on self-reported interview accounts without triangulation against examination records, enforcement data, or outcome metrics. This leaves open whether reported centrality reflects actual causal impact or perceived regulatory pressure, weakening the distinction drawn from other civil rights domains.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim of providing the 'first empirical account' would benefit from a brief qualifier noting the interview-based scope and any acknowledged limitations to avoid overstatement.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which highlight important issues of transparency and evidentiary strength in our qualitative study. We address each point below and indicate where revisions will be made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: The manuscript provides no details on the sampling strategy, recruitment process, or criteria for selecting the 35 interviewees, nor on the qualitative analysis procedures (e.g., coding framework, inter-coder reliability, or member checking). This directly affects the load-bearing claim that supervision is the 'key driver' across the ecosystem, as the sample may over-represent institutions where examinations are salient due to access or willingness to participate.

    Authors: We agree that the submitted manuscript's Methods section is insufficiently detailed. In revision we will expand it to describe: recruitment via professional networks, industry conferences, and snowball sampling; selection criteria aimed at diversity across large banks, community banks, regulators, consultants, and civil society; and analysis via iterative thematic coding in NVivo with a collaboratively developed codebook and team debriefing. We will explicitly note the absence of formal inter-coder reliability metrics and the single-primary-coder design. These additions will improve transparency and allow readers to assess potential selection effects on the supervision finding. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Findings] Findings/Discussion: The assertion that supervisory authority has 'successfully fostered' fair lending practices relies solely on self-reported interview accounts without triangulation against examination records, enforcement data, or outcome metrics. This leaves open whether reported centrality reflects actual causal impact or perceived regulatory pressure, weakening the distinction drawn from other civil rights domains.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the evidence is drawn from practitioner accounts rather than direct observation of examination outcomes or quantitative metrics. Confidential examination records are not accessible to researchers, precluding triangulation. We will revise the Discussion to qualify the language, describing supervision as the factor most consistently identified by participants as shaping compliance activity, while clarifying that we report perceived mechanisms rather than proven causal effects. The contrast with other civil-rights domains will be retained on the basis of the documented absence of analogous supervisory regimes in the literature, not on a claim of superior outcomes. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Triangulation against confidential examination records or enforcement data is not feasible given legal and institutional constraints on access.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; qualitative empirical study with external data

full rationale

The paper presents findings from 35 semi-structured interviews on fair lending practices. It contains no mathematical derivations, equations, fitted parameters, predictions, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems. No steps reduce by construction to inputs, and no self-citation chains are load-bearing for central claims. The work is descriptive and draws on external interview data without self-referential logic that would create circularity. This is the expected outcome for non-deductive empirical research.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 0 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a qualitative empirical study based on interviews; it introduces no free parameters, mathematical axioms, or invented entities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Fair Lending Model: How the Longest-Running Algorithmic Fairness Programs Work in Practice." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BTBD7G7R

@misc{pith2026260602957,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Fair Lending Model: How the Longest-Running Algorithmic Fairness Programs Work in Practice},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BTBD7G7R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.02957}
}
read the original abstract

U.S. financial institutions subject to fair lending laws have been running algorithmic fairness programs for decades. Despite this long history, remarkably little is known about how these requirements operate in practice. In this paper, we offer the first empirical account of how financial institutions test for and mitigate algorithmic discrimination on the ground. In doing so, we shed light on how the regulatory design of fair lending law and regulation have shaped the policies, processes, and practices of fair lending programs. Drawing on 35 semi-structured interviews with participants across the fair lending ecosystem, we find that while financial institutions have a floor of fairness practices aimed at preventing discrimination in lending largely absent in other domains, the specifics of how firms test for discrimination and search for less discriminatory algorithms varies widely. We also find that regulatory supervision via fair lending examinations has been the key driver of compliance work, but that the practical impact of fair lending programs often depends on how well they can navigate competing business incentives, perceived legal tensions, and regulatory uncertainty. Ultimately, our findings highlight the unique role that supervisory authority has played in successfully fostering fair lending practices -- a regulatory design feature that is distinct from other areas of civil rights law and almost completely absent from recent policy proposals for dealing with algorithmic discrimination.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C

    1968. Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3619

    1968

  2. [2]

    Alekh Agarwal, Alina Beygelzimer, Miroslav Dudík, John Langford, and Hanna Wallach. 2018. A Reductions Approach to Fair Classification. InProceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML). PMLR, 60–69. Introduces a framework for enforcing fairness constraints via reductions to cost-sensitive classification

    2018

  3. [3]

    Muhammad Azeem Akbar, Arif Ali Khan, Sajjad Mahmood, Saima Rafi, and Selina Demi. 2024. Trustworthy artificial intelligence: A decision-making taxonomy of potential challenges.Software: Practice and Experience54, 9 (2024), 1621–1650

    2024

  4. [4]

    Pouria Akbarighatar. 2024. Operationalizing responsible AI principles through responsible AI capabilities.AI and Ethics(2024), 1–15

    2024

  5. [5]

    Sanna J Ali, Angèle Christin, Andrew Smart, and Riitta Katila. 2023. Walking the walk of AI ethics: Organizational challenges and the individualization of risk among ethics entrepreneurs. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 217–226

    2023

  6. [6]

    McKane Andrus, Elena Spitzer, Jeffrey Brown, and Alice Xiang. 2021. What we can’t measure, we can’t understand: Challenges to demographic data procurement in the pursuit of fairness. InProceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 249–260

    2021

  7. [7]

    Fairness Toolkits, A Checkbox Culture?

    Agathe Balayn, Mireia Yurrita, Jie Yang, and Ujwal Gadiraju. 2023. “Fairness Toolkits, A Checkbox Culture?” On the Factors that Fragment Developer Practices in Handling Algorithmic Harms. InProceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 482–495

    2023

  8. [8]

    2011.Understanding regulation: theory, strategy, and practice

    Robert Baldwin, Martin Cave, and Martin Lodge. 2011.Understanding regulation: theory, strategy, and practice. Oxford university press

    2011

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    2015.Privacy on the ground: driving corporate behavior in the United States and Europe

    Kenneth A Bamberger and Deirdre K Mulligan. 2015.Privacy on the ground: driving corporate behavior in the United States and Europe. MIT Press

    2015

  2. [10]

    Rebecca Bauer-Kahan. 2025. Automated Decision Systems (Automated Decisions Safety Act). California State Legislature. https: //leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1018 A.B. 1018, 2025–2026 Regular Session (Cal.)

    2025

  3. [11]

    Emily Black et al. 2024. Less Discriminatory Algorithms.Georgetown Law Journal113 (2024), 53–

    2024

  4. [12]

    2007.Report to the Congress on Credit Scoring and Its Effects on the A vailability and Affordability of Credit

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 2007.Report to the Congress on Credit Scoring and Its Effects on the A vailability and Affordability of Credit. Technical Report. Federal Reserve Board. https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/creditscore/ Submitte...

    2007

  5. [13]

    Miranda Bogen, Aaron Rieke, and Shazeda Ahmed. 2020. Awareness in practice: tensions in access to sensitive attribute data for antidiscrimination. InProceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(Barcelona, Spain)(FAT* ’20). Association for Co...

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    Rishi Bommasani, Sanjeev Arora, Jennifer Chayes, Yejin Choi, Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, Li Fei-Fei, Daniel E. Ho, Dan Jurafsky, Sanmi Koyejo, Hima Lakkaraju, Arvind Narayanan, Alondra Nelson, Emma Pierson, Joelle Pineau, Scott Singer, Gaël Varoquaux, Suresh Venkatasubramanian...

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis.Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health11, 4 (2019), 589–597. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806 Paper discussing developments and clarifications of reflexive thematic analysis

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2021. Thematic analysis: A practical guide. (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Jacques Bughin. 2024. Doing versus saying: responsible AI among large firms.AI & SOCIETY(2024), 1–13

    2024

  10. [18]

    California State Legislature. 2025. Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, SB 53. State Law

    2025

  11. [19]

    Noel Capon. 1976. Credit Scoring Systems: A Critical Analysis.Journal of Marketing Research(1976). https://business.columbia.edu/ sites/default/files-efs/pubfiles/690/24.pdf Columbia Business School Working Paper version

    1976

  12. [20]

    Simon Caton and Christian Haas. 2024. Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey.Comput. Surveys56, 7 (2024), 1–38. doi:10.1145/3616865 Comprehensive overview of fairness definitions and methods, organizing pre-processing, in-processing, and post-processing approaches

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Alexandra Chouldechova. 2017. Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments.Big data5, 2 (2017), 153–163

    2017

  14. [22]

    Robert Cinca, Enrico Costanza, and Mirco Musolesi. 2025. Practitioners and Bias in Machine Learning: A Study.ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems15, 2 (2025), 1–28

    2025

  15. [23]

    Cohen, Nina-Simone Edwards, Meg Leta Jones, and Paul Ohm

    Julie E. Cohen, Nina-Simone Edwards, Meg Leta Jones, and Paul Ohm. 2025.Designing Policymaking Mechanisms for Regulatory Dynamism. Preliminary Concept Paper. Georgetown University Law Center, Institute for Technology Law & Policy, Reimagining the Governance Stack Project. The ...

    2025

  16. [24]

    Julie E Cohen, Paul Ohm, Meg Leta Jones, Brenda Dvoskin, and Smitha Krishna Prasad. 2024. Regulatory Monitoring in the Information Economy.Redesigning the Governance Stack Project(2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Colorado State Legislature. 2024. Colorado Anti-Discrimination in AI Law / Consumer Protections for Artificial Intelligence (Colorado AI Act), SB 24-205. State Law

    2024

  18. [26]

    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 2014. Using Publicly Available Information to Proxy for Unidentified Race and Ethnicity. White Paper. https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201409_cfpb_report_proxy-methodology.pdf

    2014

  19. [27]

    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 2025. Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B).Federal Register90 (13 Nov. 2025), 50901–50923. Proposed Rule, Document No. 2025-19864, RIN 3170-AB54

    2025

  20. [28]

    Peter Conti-Brown and Sean H. Vanatta. 2025.Private Finance, Public Power: A History of Bank Supervision in America. Princeton University Press

    2025

  21. [29]

    Sasha Costanza-Chock, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, and Joy Buolamwini. 2022. Who Audits the Auditors? Recommendations from a field scan of the algorithmic auditing ecosystem. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 1571–1583

    2022

  22. [30]

    Wesley Hanwen Deng, Solon Barocas, and Jennifer Wortman Vaughan. 2025. Supporting Industry Computing Researchers in Assessing, Articulating, and Addressing the Potential Negative Societal Impact of Their Work.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction9, 2 (2025), 1–37

    2025

  23. [31]

    Wesley Hanwen Deng, Boyuan Guo, Alicia Devrio, Hong Shen, Motahhare Eslami, and Kenneth Holstein. 2023. Understanding practices, challenges, and opportunities for user-engaged algorithm auditing in industry practice. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in...

    2023

  24. [32]

    Wesley Hanwen Deng, Manish Nagireddy, Michelle Seng Ah Lee, Jatinder Singh, Zhiwei Steven Wu, Kenneth Holstein, and Haiyi Zhu

  25. [33]

    InProceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency

    Exploring how machine learning practitioners (try to) use fairness toolkits. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 473–484

    2022

  26. [34]

    Wesley Hanwen Deng, Nur Yildirim, Monica Chang, Motahhare Eslami, Kenneth Holstein, and Michael Madaio. 2023. Investigating practices and opportunities for cross-functional collaboration around AI fairness in industry practice. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairn...

    2023

  27. [35]

    Cynthia Dwork, Moritz Hardt, Toniann Pitassi, Omer Reingold, and Richard Zemel. 2012. Fairness through awareness. InProceedings of the 3rd innovations in theoretical computer science conference. 214–226

    2012

  28. [36]

    2020.Working law: Courts, corporations, and symbolic civil rights

    Lauren B Edelman. 2020.Working law: Courts, corporations, and symbolic civil rights. University of Chicago Press

    2020

  29. [37]

    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 1983. Procedures for Complaints of Employment Discrimination Filed Against Recipients of Federal Financial Assistance. 29 C.F.R. Part 1691. Originally published 48 FR 3574 (Jan. 25, 1983); last amended 54 FR 32063 (Aug. 4, 1989). Electr...

    1983

  30. [38]

    FinRegLab. 2023. Explainability and Fairness in Machine Learning for Credit Underwriting: Policy Analysis. https://finreglab.org/ research/explainability-fairness-in-machine-learning-for-credit-underwriting-policyanalysis/ Dec. 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    FinRegLab. 2023. Machine Learning Explainability & Fairness: Insights from Consumer Lending. https://finreglab.org/research/machine- learning-explainability-fairness-insights-from-consumer-lending/ Jul. 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Marissa Kumar Gerchick, Ro Encarnación, Cole Tanigawa-Lau, Lena Armstrong, Ana Gutiérrez, and Danaé Metaxa. 2025. Auditing the Audits: Lessons for Algorithmic Accountability from Local Law 144’s Bias Audits. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability,...

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    Jessica Gonzalez. 2025. New York Artificial Intelligence Consumer Protection Act. New York State Senate. https://www.nysenate.gov/ legislation/bills/2025/S1962 S. 1962, 2025–2026 Regular Sessions (N.Y.)

    2025

  34. [42]

    Parikshit Gopalan, Adam Tauman Kalai, Omer Reingold, Vatsal Sharan, and Udi Wieder. 2021. Omnipredictors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.05389(2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Lara Groves, Jacob Metcalf, Alayna Kennedy, Briana Vecchione, and Andrew Strait. 2024. Auditing Work: Exploring the New York City algorithmic bias audit regime. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)(FAccT...

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    Lawrence, Lindsey A

    Neel Guha, Christie M. Lawrence, Lindsey A. Gailmard, Kit T. Rodolfa, Faiz Surani, Rishi Bommasani, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Mariano- Florentino Cuéllar, Colleen Honigsberg, Percy Liang, and Daniel E. Ho. 2024. AI Regulation Has Its Own Alignment Problem: The Technical and Insti...

    2024

  37. [45]

    Lakshitha Gunasekara, Nicole El-Haber, Swati Nagpal, Harsha Moraliyage, Zafar Issadeen, Milos Manic, and Daswin De Silva. 2025. A Systematic Review of Responsible Artificial Intelligence Principles and Practice.Applied System Innovation8, 4 (2025), 97. FAccT ’26, June 25–28, 2...

    2025

  38. [46]

    Patrick Hall, Benjamin Cox, Steven Dickerson, Arjun Ravi Kannan, Raghu Kulkarni, and Nicholas Schmidt. 2021. A United States Fair Lending Perspective on Machine Learning.Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence4 (June 2021), 695301. doi:10.3389/frai.2021.695301 Mini Review article...

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    equal opportunity

    Moritz Hardt, Eric Price, and Nathan Srebro. 2016. Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 29. NeurIPS, 3315–3323. Proposes the “equal opportunity” fairness criterion for predictors in supervised learning

    2016

  40. [48]

    Ursula Hébert-Johnson, Michael Kim, Omer Reingold, and Guy Rothblum. 2018. Multicalibration: Calibration for the (computationally- identifiable) masses. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 1939–1948

    2018

  41. [49]

    Daniel E Ho and Alice Xiang. 2020. Affirmative algorithms: The legal grounds for fairness as awareness.U. Chi. L. Rev. Online(2020), 134

    2020

  42. [50]

    Kenneth Holstein, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hal Daumé III, Miro Dudik, and Hanna Wallach. 2019. Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–16

    2019

  43. [51]

    Pauline T. Kim. 2022. Race-Aware Algorithms: Fairness, Nondiscrimination, and Affirmative Action.California Law Review110 (2022), 1539–

    2022

  44. [52]

    Elizabeth Kumar, Keegan E

    I. Elizabeth Kumar, Keegan E. Hines, and John P. Dickerson. 2022. Equalizing Credit Opportunity in Algorithms: Aligning Algorithmic Fairness Research with U.S. Fair Lending Regulation. InProceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society(Oxford, United King...

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    Khoa Lam, Benjamin Lange, Borhane Blili-Hamelin, Jovana Davidovic, Shea Brown, and Ali Hasan. 2024. A Framework for Assurance Audits of Algorithmic Systems. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)(FAccT ’24...

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    I Don’t Know If We’re Doing Good. I Don’t Know If We’re Doing Bad

    Hao-Ping Hank Lee, Lan Gao, Stephanie Yang, Jodi Forlizzi, and Sauvik Das. 2024. "I Don’t Know If We’re Doing Good. I Don’t Know If We’re Doing Bad": Investigating How Practitioners Scope, Motivate, and Conduct Privacy Work When Developing{AI} Products. In 33rd USENIX Security...

    2024

  47. [55]

    Michael Madaio, Shivani Kapania, Rida Qadri, Ding Wang, Andrew Zaldivar, Remi Denton, and Lauren Wilcox. 2024. Learning about Responsible AI On-The-Job: Learning Pathways, Orientations, and Aspirations. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and ...

    2024

  48. [56]

    Michael A Madaio, Jingya Chen, Hanna Wallach, and Jennifer Wortman Vaughan. 2024. Tinker, Tailor, Configure, Customize: The Articulation Work of Contextualizing an AI Fairness Checklist.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8, CSCW1 (2024), 1–20

    2024

  49. [57]

    Michael A Madaio, Luke Stark, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, and Hanna Wallach. 2020. Co-designing checklists to understand organi- zational challenges and opportunities around fairness in AI. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–14

    2020

  50. [58]

    Edward J. Markey. 2025. Artificial Intelligence Civil Rights Act of 2025. United States Senate. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th- congress/senate-bill/3308 S. 3308, 119th Cong., 1st Sess

    2025

  51. [59]

    New York City Council. 2021. New York City Local Law 144 of 2021 – Automated Employment Decision Tools (AEDT) Bias Audit Law. Municipal Legislation

    2021

  52. [60]

    Ariadne A Nichol, Meghan Halley, Carole Federico, Mildred K Cho, and Pamela L Sankar. 2024. Moral engagement and disengagement in health care AI development.AJOB Empirical Bioethics15, 4 (2024), 291–300

    2024

  53. [61]

    Executive Office of the President. 2025. Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity. Executive Order 14173. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/31/2025-02097/ending-illegal-discrimination-and-restoring-merit-based- opportunity 90 Fed. Reg...

    2025

  54. [62]

    Will Orr and Jenny L Davis. 2020. Attributions of ethical responsibility by Artificial Intelligence practitioners.Information, Communication & Society23, 5 (2020), 719–735

    2020

  55. [63]

    Samir Passi and Solon Barocas. 2019. Problem Formulation and Fairness. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 39–48

    2019

  56. [64]

    Martha A. Poon. 2012.What Lenders See: A History of the Fair Isaac Scorecard. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of California. https: //escholarship.org/uc/item/7n1369x2

    2012

  57. [65]

    Bogdana Rakova, Jingying Yang, Henriette Cramer, and Rumman Chowdhury. 2021. Where responsible AI meets reality: Practitioner perspectives on enablers for shifting organizational practices.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–23

    2021

  58. [66]

    Mark Ryan, Eleni Christodoulou, Josephina Antoniou, and Kalypso Iordanou. 2024. An AI ethics ‘David and Goliath’: value conflicts between large tech companies and their employees.AI & SOCIETY39, 2 (2024), 557–572

    2024

  59. [67]

    Seamus Ryan, Camille Nadal, and Gavin Doherty. 2023. Integrating fairness in the software design process: An interview study with hci and ml experts.IEEE Access11 (2023), 29296–29313. The Fair Lending Model FAccT ’26, June 25–28, 2026, Montreal, QC, Canada

    2023

  60. [68]

    Malak Sadek and Celine Mougenot. 2024. Challenges in Value-Sensitive AI Design: Insights from AI Practitioner Interviews.International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction(2024), 1–18

    2024

  61. [69]

    Nithya Sambasivan and Rajesh Veeraraghavan. 2022. The deskilling of domain expertise in AI development. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–14

    2022

  62. [70]

    Jayshree Sarathy, Sophia Song, Audrey Haque, Tania Schlatter, and Salil Vadhan. 2023. Don’t look at the data! how differential privacy reconfigures the practices of data science. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–19

    2023

  63. [71]

    Daniel S Schiff, Stephanie Kelley, and Javier Camacho Ibáñez. 2024. The emergence of artificial intelligence ethics auditing.Big Data & Society11, 4 (2024), 20539517241299732

    2024

  64. [72]

    ANDREW D SELBST and SOLON BAROCAS. 2023. UNFAIR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: HOW FTC INTERVENTION CAN OVER- COME THE LIMITATIONS OF DISCRIMINATION LAW.University of Pennsylvania Law Review171, 4 (2023)

    2023

  65. [73]

    Jessie J Smith, Anas Buhayh, Anushka Kathait, Pradeep Ragothaman, Nicholas Mattei, Robin Burke, and Amy Voida. 2023. The many faces of fairness: Exploring the institutional logics of multistakeholder microlending recommendation. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fair...

    2023

  66. [74]

    Jessie J Smith, Michael Madaio, Robin Burke, and Casey Fiesler. 2025. Pragmatic Fairness: Evaluating ML Fairness Within the Constraints of Industry. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 628–638

    2025

  67. [75]

    Texas State Legislature. 2025. Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act, HB 149. State Law

    2025

  68. [76]

    United States Congress. 1974. Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691–1691f. Federal Statute

    1974

  69. [77]

    United States Congress. 1975. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. Pub. L. No. 94-200, 89 Stat. 1124, codified at 12 U.S.C. §§ 2801–2810

    1975

  70. [78]

    United States Congress. 1977. Community Reinvestment Act. Pub. L. No. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, codified at 12 U.S.C. §§ 2901–2908

    1977

  71. [79]

    2021.Industry unbound: The inside story of privacy, data, and corporate power

    Ari Ezra Waldman. 2021.Industry unbound: The inside story of privacy, data, and corporate power. Cambridge University Press

    2021

  72. [80]

    John R. Walter. 1995. The Fair Lending Laws and Their Enforcement.Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Economic Quarterly81, 4 (1995), 61–77. https://www.richmondfed.org/~/media/richmondfedorg/publications/research/economic_quarterly/1995/fall/pdf/walter.pdf

    1995

  73. [81]

    Ding Wang, Shantanu Prabhat, and Nithya Sambasivan. 2022. Whose AI Dream? In search of the aspiration in data annotation.. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–16

    2022

  74. [82]

    Qiaosi Wang, Michael Madaio, Shaun Kane, Shivani Kapania, Michael Terry, and Lauren Wilcox. 2023. Designing responsible ai: Adaptations of ux practice to meet responsible ai challenges. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16

    2023

  75. [83]

    License to Critique

    David Gray Widder, Laura Dabbish, James D Herbsleb, and Nikolas Martelaro. 2024. Power and Play: Investigating"License to Critique"in Teams’ AI Ethics Discussions.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8, CSCW2 (2024), 1–23

    2024

  76. [84]

    AI supply chain

    David Gray Widder and Dawn Nafus. 2023. Dislocated accountabilities in the “AI supply chain”: Modularity and developers’ notions of responsibility.Big Data & Society10, 1 (2023), 20539517231177620

    2023

  77. [85]

    Ethical AI

    David Gray Widder, Dawn Nafus, Laura Dabbish, and James Herbsleb. 2022. Limits and possibilities for “Ethical AI” in open source: A study of deepfakes. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 2035–2046

    2022

  78. [87]

    Nathan Matias

    Lucas Wright, Roxana Mika Muenster, Briana Vecchione, Tianyao Qu, Pika (Senhuang) Cai, Alan Smith, Comm 2450 Student Investigators, Jacob Metcalf, and J. Nathan Matias. 2024. Null Compliance: NYC Local Law 144 and the challenges of algorithm accountability. In Proceedings of t...

    2024 doi

  79. [88]

    serve the same business purpose

    Wenbin Zhang. 2024. AI fairness in practice: Paradigm, challenges, and prospects.Ai Magazine45, 3 (2024), 386–395. A Participant Information In this section, we include our participant information in Table 1. B Interview Protocols The following section provides the protocols u...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed June 28, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.