Team Diversity Promotes Software Fairness: An Experiment on Fairness-Aware Requirements Prioritization

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.12406v1
• Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 19:38:18 GMT
• Title: Team Diversity Promotes Software Fairness: An Experiment on Fairness-Aware Requirements Prioritization
• Abstract summary: This study investigates how diversity in software teams influences fairness-aware behavior during requirements prioritization.<n>Team diversity can enhance the identification and interpretation of fairness issues during requirements analysis.
• Score: 4.730233684561005
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: \textbf{Background:} Fairness and diversity are receiving growing attention in software engineering, particularly as AI and machine learning systems increasingly influence decision-making processes. While fairness is often examined at the algorithmic or data level, there is limited understanding of how it is addressed during the early stages of software development. Moreover, little is known about how team diversity affects fairness-related decisions in software projects. \textbf{Aims:} This study investigates how diversity in software teams influences fairness-aware behavior during requirements prioritization. \textbf{Method:} A controlled experiment was conducted with 27 pairs of software engineering students, including 13 LGBTQ diverse pairs and 14 non diverse pairs. Each pair prioritized user stories with varying fairness implications. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze attitudes and prioritization outcomes, and thematic analysis was applied to examine the reasoning behind participants' decisions. \textbf{Results:} Both groups demonstrated general alignment with fairness principles, prioritizing features that promoted equitable treatment and rejecting those that posed fairness risks. However, LGBTQ diverse pairs were more consistent in rejecting fairness risking stories and made fewer fairness related misprioritization errors. Their reasoning emphasized inclusion, non discrimination, and ethical responsibility, whereas non diverse pairs adopted a more pragmatic, goal oriented perspective. \textbf{Conclusions:} The findings indicate that fairness should be considered from the earliest stages of software development. Team diversity can enhance the identification and interpretation of fairness issues during requirements analysis, fostering more reflective and inclusive decision making.

Related papers

• Measuring Perceptions of Fairness in AI Systems: The Effects of Infra-marginality [2.48490797934472]
  We present a user study with 85 participants in a hypothetical medical decision-making scenario.<n>Our results show that participants did not equate fairness with simple statistical parity.<n>These findings highlight that fairness judgments are shaped not only by outcomes, but also by beliefs about the causes of disparities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-06T04:15:52Z)
• A Gray Literature Study on Fairness Requirements in AI-enabled Software Engineering [3.5429774642987915]
  This paper presents a review of existing gray literature, examining fairness requirements in AI context.<n>Our gray literature investigation shows various definitions of fairness requirements in AI systems.<n>Fairness requirement violations are frequently linked, but not limited, to data representation bias, algorithmic and model design bias, human judgment, and evaluation and transparency gaps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-08T19:22:01Z)
• What Hides behind Unfairness? Exploring Dynamics Fairness in Reinforcement Learning [52.51430732904994]
  In reinforcement learning problems, agents must consider long-term fairness while maximizing returns. Recent works have proposed many different types of fairness notions, but how unfairness arises in RL problems remains unclear. We introduce a novel notion called dynamics fairness, which explicitly captures the inequality stemming from environmental dynamics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-16T22:47:59Z)
• Fairness Explainability using Optimal Transport with Applications in Image Classification [0.46040036610482665]
  We propose a comprehensive approach to uncover the causes of discrimination in Machine Learning applications. We leverage Wasserstein barycenters to achieve fair predictions and introduce an extension to pinpoint bias-associated regions. This allows us to derive a cohesive system which uses the enforced fairness to measure each features influence emphon the bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-22T00:10:23Z)
• Fairness meets Cross-Domain Learning: a new perspective on Models and Metrics [80.07271410743806]
  We study the relationship between cross-domain learning (CD) and model fairness. We introduce a benchmark on face and medical images spanning several demographic groups as well as classification and localization tasks. Our study covers 14 CD approaches alongside three state-of-the-art fairness algorithms and shows how the former can outperform the latter.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-25T09:34:05Z)
• Survey on Fairness Notions and Related Tensions [4.257210316104905]
  Automated decision systems are increasingly used to take consequential decisions in problems such as job hiring and loan granting. However, objective machine learning (ML) algorithms are prone to bias, which results in yet unfair decisions. This paper surveys the commonly used fairness notions and discusses the tensions among them with privacy and accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-16T13:36:05Z)
• Error Parity Fairness: Testing for Group Fairness in Regression Tasks [5.076419064097733]
  This work presents error parity as a regression fairness notion and introduces a testing methodology to assess group fairness. It is followed by a suitable permutation test to compare groups on several statistics to explore disparities and identify impacted groups. Overall, the proposed regression fairness testing methodology fills a gap in the fair machine learning literature and may serve as a part of larger accountability assessments and algorithm audits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-16T17:47:20Z)
• Causal Fairness Analysis [68.12191782657437]
  We introduce a framework for understanding, modeling, and possibly solving issues of fairness in decision-making settings. The main insight of our approach will be to link the quantification of the disparities present on the observed data with the underlying, and often unobserved, collection of causal mechanisms. Our effort culminates in the Fairness Map, which is the first systematic attempt to organize and explain the relationship between different criteria found in the literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-23T01:06:34Z)
• Normalise for Fairness: A Simple Normalisation Technique for Fairness in Regression Machine Learning Problems [46.93320580613236]
  We present a simple, yet effective method based on normalisation (FaiReg) for regression problems. We compare it with two standard methods for fairness, namely data balancing and adversarial training. The results show the superior performance of diminishing the effects of unfairness better than data balancing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-02T12:26:25Z)
• MultiFair: Multi-Group Fairness in Machine Learning [52.24956510371455]
  We study multi-group fairness in machine learning (MultiFair) We propose a generic end-to-end algorithmic framework to solve it. Our proposed framework is generalizable to many different settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-24T02:30:22Z)
• Through the Data Management Lens: Experimental Analysis and Evaluation of Fair Classification [75.49600684537117]
  Data management research is showing an increasing presence and interest in topics related to data and algorithmic fairness. We contribute a broad analysis of 13 fair classification approaches and additional variants, over their correctness, fairness, efficiency, scalability, and stability. Our analysis highlights novel insights on the impact of different metrics and high-level approach characteristics on different aspects of performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-18T22:55:40Z)
• Causal Feature Selection for Algorithmic Fairness [61.767399505764736]
  We consider fairness in the integration component of data management. We propose an approach to identify a sub-collection of features that ensure the fairness of the dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-10T20:20:10Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.