Algorithmic decision making methods for fair credit scoring

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2209.07912v3
• Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2023 11:55:39 GMT
• Title: Algorithmic decision making methods for fair credit scoring
• Authors: Darie Moldovan
• Abstract summary: We evaluate the effectiveness of 12 leading bias mitigation methods across 5 different fairness metrics. Our research serves to bridge the gap between experimental machine learning and its practical applications in the finance industry.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The effectiveness of machine learning in evaluating the creditworthiness of loan applicants has been demonstrated for a long time. However, there is concern that the use of automated decision-making processes may result in unequal treatment of groups or individuals, potentially leading to discriminatory outcomes. This paper seeks to address this issue by evaluating the effectiveness of 12 leading bias mitigation methods across 5 different fairness metrics, as well as assessing their accuracy and potential profitability for financial institutions. Through our analysis, we have identified the challenges associated with achieving fairness while maintaining accuracy and profitabiliy, and have highlighted both the most successful and least successful mitigation methods. Ultimately, our research serves to bridge the gap between experimental machine learning and its practical applications in the finance industry.

Related papers

• Best Practices for Responsible Machine Learning in Credit Scoring [0.03984353141309896]
  This tutorial paper performed a non-systematic literature review to guide best practices for developing responsible machine learning models in credit scoring. We discuss definitions, metrics, and techniques for mitigating biases and ensuring equitable outcomes across different groups. By adopting these best practices, financial institutions can harness the power of machine learning while upholding ethical and responsible lending practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-30T17:39:38Z)
• Ensuring Equitable Financial Decisions: Leveraging Counterfactual Fairness and Deep Learning for Bias [0.0]
  This research paper investigates advanced bias mitigation techniques, with a particular focus on counterfactual fairness in conjunction with data augmentation. The study looks into how these integrated approaches can lessen gender bias in the financial industry, specifically in loan approval procedures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-27T14:28:06Z)
• Are we making progress in unlearning? Findings from the first NeurIPS unlearning competition [70.60872754129832]
  First NeurIPS competition on unlearning sought to stimulate the development of novel algorithms. Nearly 1,200 teams from across the world participated. We analyze top solutions and delve into discussions on benchmarking unlearning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T12:58:00Z)
• Reduced-Rank Multi-objective Policy Learning and Optimization [57.978477569678844]
  In practice, causal researchers do not have a single outcome in mind a priori. In government-assisted social benefit programs, policymakers collect many outcomes to understand the multidimensional nature of poverty. We present a data-driven dimensionality-reduction methodology for multiple outcomes in the context of optimal policy learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-29T08:16:30Z)
• A Distributionally Robust Optimisation Approach to Fair Credit Scoring [2.8851756275902467]
  Credit scoring has been catalogued by the European Commission and the Executive Office of the US President as a high-risk classification task. To address this concern, recent credit scoring research has considered a range of fairness-enhancing techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T11:43:59Z)
• Online Decision Mediation [72.80902932543474]
  Consider learning a decision support assistant to serve as an intermediary between (oracle) expert behavior and (imperfect) human behavior. In clinical diagnosis, fully-autonomous machine behavior is often beyond ethical affordances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T05:59:43Z)
• Causal Fairness for Outcome Control [68.12191782657437]
  We study a specific decision-making task called outcome control in which an automated system aims to optimize an outcome variable $Y$ while being fair and equitable. In this paper, we first analyze through causal lenses the notion of benefit, which captures how much a specific individual would benefit from a positive decision. We then note that the benefit itself may be influenced by the protected attribute, and propose causal tools which can be used to analyze this.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-08T09:31:18Z)
• Inclusive FinTech Lending via Contrastive Learning and Domain Adaptation [9.75150920742607]
  FinTech lending has played a significant role in facilitating financial inclusion. There are concerns about the potentially biased algorithmic decision-making during loan screening. We propose a new Transformer-based sequential loan screening model with self-supervised contrastive learning and domain adaptation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-10T01:11:35Z)
• Fairness in Matching under Uncertainty [78.39459690570531]
  algorithmic two-sided marketplaces have drawn attention to the issue of fairness in such settings. We axiomatize a notion of individual fairness in the two-sided marketplace setting which respects the uncertainty in the merits. We design a linear programming framework to find fair utility-maximizing distributions over allocations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-08T00:30:32Z)
• 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)
• How fair can we go in machine learning? Assessing the boundaries of fairness in decision trees [0.12891210250935145]
  We present the first methodology that allows to explore the statistical limits of bias mitigation interventions. We focus our study on decision tree classifiers since they are widely accepted in machine learning. We conclude experimentally that our method can optimize decision tree models by being fairer with a small cost of the classification error.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-22T16:28:26Z)

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.