Fairness Hazard Analysis for Socio-Technical Processes: A Multiple-Case Study in Bias-sensitive Organisational Settings

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.22978v1
• Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 08:37:29 GMT
• Title: Fairness Hazard Analysis for Socio-Technical Processes: A Multiple-Case Study in Bias-sensitive Organisational Settings
• Abstract summary: Fairness is recognised as a first-class requirement in socio-technical processes.<n>If left unaddressed, fairness hazards may accumulate and reinforce systemic bias.<n>This paper contributes a structured and empirically validated methodology for integrating fairness considerations in requirements engineering.
• Score: 7.448292619884597
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Fairness is increasingly recognised as a first-class requirement in socio-technical processes, where interactions among human actors, software systems, and AI technologies may lead to unfair outcomes in decision-making workflows. If left unaddressed, fairness hazards may accumulate and reinforce systemic bias, highlighting the need to engineer fairness proactively. Despite growing interest in fairness-aware systems, systematic methods for identifying fairness hazards in socio-technical processes and deriving requirements-level mitigations remain limited. To support fairness-by-design during requirements engineering (RE), Fairness Hazard Analysis (FHA) is introduced as a methodology for systematically identifying, analysing, and mitigating fairness hazards. FHA is first assessed through a proof-of-concept validation conducted via two focus groups. Then, a qualitative multiple-case study involving two organisations examines its applicability in real-world settings. The proof-of-concept validation highlighted the benefits derived from the structured nature of the method, and suggested the need to include iterative, dialogic reflection with domain experts. In the multiple case-study where FHA was applied, the practitioners involved were positively impressed by the results and confirmed the relevance of the identified fairness hazards (spanning up to 27% of the process elements), as well as the appropriateness of most of the proposed mitigations, while noting that contextual factors might hinder their implementation. The evaluation also highlighted mitigation patterns, such as independent review and collective decision-making, which can be transferred to different organisations. This paper contributes a structured and empirically validated methodology for integrating fairness considerations in RE and preventing systemic bias in socio-technical processes.

Related papers

• Bridging Formal and Perceived Fairness: Development of an Interdisciplinary Framework in Algorithmic Decision-Making [4.0890152430062185]
  This paper presents a work-in-progress conceptual framework that bridges Computer Science approaches to formal algorithmic fairness with normative and Social Science fairness approaches.<n>The project aims to inform evaluation approaches that integrate computational fairness audits with user-centered assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-03T13:45:42Z)
• From Awareness to Action: Understanding and Overcoming the Research-Practice Gap in Algorithmic Fairness for Public Health [3.4137115855910767]
  Algorithmic fairness is essential for responsible ML-driven public health research, yet its practical implementation remains limited.<n>We conduct a sequential mixed-methods study comprising expert interviews, an online survey, and systematic mapping.<n>Our analysis shows that fairness remains weakly institutionalized, translation mechanisms are externally driven, and system-level priorities continue to emphasize accuracy over fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-02T10:00:21Z)
• Trade-offs Between Individual and Group Fairness in Machine Learning: A Comprehensive Review [0.0]
  Group Fairness (GF) focuses on mitigating disparities across demographic subpopulations, and Individual Fairness (IF) emphasizes consistent treatment of similar individuals.<n>This survey examines methods that jointly address GF and IF, integrating both perspectives within unified frameworks.<n>We provide a systematic and critical review of hybrid fairness approaches, organizing existing methods according to the fairness mechanisms they employ and the algorithmic and mathematical strategies used to reconcile multiple fairness criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T19:25:38Z)
• Reliable and Reproducible Demographic Inference for Fairness in Face Analysis [63.46525489354455]
  We propose a fully reproducible DAI pipeline that replaces conventional end-to-end training with a modular transfer learning approach.<n>We audit this pipeline across three dimensions: accuracy, fairness, and a newly introduced notion of robustness, defined via intra-identity consistency.<n>Our results show that the proposed method outperforms strong baselines, particularly on ethnicity, which is the more challenging attribute.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-23T12:22:02Z)
• FaithCoT-Bench: Benchmarking Instance-Level Faithfulness of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [62.452350134196934]
  FaithCoT-Bench is a unified benchmark for instance-level CoT unfaithfulness detection.<n>Our framework formulates unfaithfulness detection as a discriminative decision problem.<n>FaithCoT-Bench sets a solid basis for future research toward more interpretable and trustworthy reasoning in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-05T05:16:54Z)
• Fairness in Federated Learning: Fairness for Whom? [4.276697874428501]
  We argue that existing approaches tend to optimize narrow system level metrics, while overlooking how harms arise throughout the FL lifecycle.<n>Our analysis reveals five recurring pitfalls: 1) fairness framed solely through the lens of server client architecture, 2) a mismatch between simulations and motivating use-cases and contexts, 3) definitions that conflate protecting the system with protecting its users, 4) interventions that target isolated stages of the lifecycle while upstream and downstream effects, 5) and a lack of multi-stakeholder alignment where multiple fairness definitions can be relevant at once.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T10:41:19Z)
• Justified Evidence Collection for Argument-based AI Fairness Assurance [7.65321625950609]
  This paper introduces a systems-engineering-driven framework, supported by software tooling, to operationalise a dynamic approach to argument-based assurance in two stages.<n>The framework's effectiveness is demonstrated through an illustrative case study in finance, with a focus on supporting fairness-related arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-12T21:05:33Z)
• A Survey of Frontiers in LLM Reasoning: Inference Scaling, Learning to Reason, and Agentic Systems [93.8285345915925]
  Reasoning is a fundamental cognitive process that enables logical inference, problem-solving, and decision-making.<n>With the rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs), reasoning has emerged as a key capability that distinguishes advanced AI systems.<n>We categorize existing methods along two dimensions: (1) Regimes, which define the stage at which reasoning is achieved; and (2) Architectures, which determine the components involved in the reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-12T01:27:49Z)
• Contextual Fairness-Aware Practices in ML: A Cost-Effective Empirical Evaluation [48.943054662940916]
  We investigate fairness-aware practices from two perspectives: contextual and cost-effectiveness.<n>Our findings provide insights into how context influences the effectiveness of fairness-aware practices.<n>This research aims to guide SE practitioners in selecting practices that achieve fairness with minimal performance costs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-19T18:10:21Z)
• Causality-Aided Trade-off Analysis for Machine Learning Fairness [11.149507394656709]
  This paper uses causality analysis as a principled method for analyzing trade-offs between fairness parameters and other crucial metrics in machine learning pipelines. We propose a set of domain-specific optimizations to facilitate accurate causal discovery and a unified, novel interface for trade-off analysis based on well-established causal inference methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T14:14:43Z)
• 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)
• Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems [76.79703106646967]
  We develop a value-based assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values. We give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T19:28:32Z)

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.