Evaluating Fairness in Transaction Fraud Models: Fairness Metrics, Bias Audits, and Challenges

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.04373v1
• Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 16:08:27 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Fairness in Transaction Fraud Models: Fairness Metrics, Bias Audits, and Challenges
• Authors: Parameswaran Kamalaruban, Yulu Pi, Stuart Burrell, Eleanor Drage, Piotr Skalski, Jason Wong, David Sutton,
• Abstract summary: Despite extensive research on algorithmic fairness, there is a notable gap in the study of bias in fraud detection models. These challenges include the need for fairness metrics that account for fraud data's imbalanced nature and the tradeoff between fraud protection and service quality. We present a comprehensive fairness evaluation of transaction fraud models using public synthetic datasets.
• Score: 3.499319293058353
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Ensuring fairness in transaction fraud detection models is vital due to the potential harms and legal implications of biased decision-making. Despite extensive research on algorithmic fairness, there is a notable gap in the study of bias in fraud detection models, mainly due to the field's unique challenges. These challenges include the need for fairness metrics that account for fraud data's imbalanced nature and the tradeoff between fraud protection and service quality. To address this gap, we present a comprehensive fairness evaluation of transaction fraud models using public synthetic datasets, marking the first algorithmic bias audit in this domain. Our findings reveal three critical insights: (1) Certain fairness metrics expose significant bias only after normalization, highlighting the impact of class imbalance. (2) Bias is significant in both service quality-related parity metrics and fraud protection-related parity metrics. (3) The fairness through unawareness approach, which involved removing sensitive attributes such as gender, does not improve bias mitigation within these datasets, likely due to the presence of correlated proxies. We also discuss socio-technical fairness-related challenges in transaction fraud models. These insights underscore the need for a nuanced approach to fairness in fraud detection, balancing protection and service quality, and moving beyond simple bias mitigation strategies. Future work must focus on refining fairness metrics and developing methods tailored to the unique complexities of the transaction fraud domain.

Related papers

• Thinking Racial Bias in Fair Forgery Detection: Models, Datasets and Evaluations [63.52709761339949]
  We first contribute a dedicated dataset called the Fair Forgery Detection (FairFD) dataset, where we prove the racial bias of public state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods. We design novel metrics including Approach Averaged Metric and Utility Regularized Metric, which can avoid deceptive results. We also present an effective and robust post-processing technique, Bias Pruning with Fair Activations (BPFA), which improves fairness without requiring retraining or weight updates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-19T14:53:18Z)
• Transparency and Privacy: The Role of Explainable AI and Federated Learning in Financial Fraud Detection [0.9831489366502302]
  This research introduces a novel approach using Federated Learning (FL) and Explainable AI (XAI) to address these challenges. FL enables financial institutions to collaboratively train a model to detect fraudulent transactions without directly sharing customer data. XAI ensures that the predictions made by the model can be understood and interpreted by human experts, adding a layer of transparency and trust to the system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-20T18:26:59Z)
• Understanding Fairness Surrogate Functions in Algorithmic Fairness [21.555040357521907]
  We show that there is a surrogate-fairness gap between the fairness definition and the fairness surrogate function. We elaborate a novel and general algorithm called Balanced Surrogate, which iteratively reduces the gap to mitigate unfairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-17T12:40:53Z)
• Learning for Counterfactual Fairness from Observational Data [62.43249746968616]
  Fairness-aware machine learning aims to eliminate biases of learning models against certain subgroups described by certain protected (sensitive) attributes such as race, gender, and age. A prerequisite for existing methods to achieve counterfactual fairness is the prior human knowledge of the causal model for the data. In this work, we address the problem of counterfactually fair prediction from observational data without given causal models by proposing a novel framework CLAIRE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-17T04:08:29Z)
• RobustFair: Adversarial Evaluation through Fairness Confusion Directed Gradient Search [8.278129731168127]
  Deep neural networks (DNNs) often face challenges due to their vulnerability to various adversarial perturbations. This paper introduces a novel approach, RobustFair, to evaluate the accurate fairness of DNNs when subjected to false or biased perturbations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-18T12:07:29Z)
• Auditing and Generating Synthetic Data with Controllable Trust Trade-offs [54.262044436203965]
  We introduce a holistic auditing framework that comprehensively evaluates synthetic datasets and AI models. It focuses on preventing bias and discrimination, ensures fidelity to the source data, assesses utility, robustness, and privacy preservation. We demonstrate the framework's effectiveness by auditing various generative models across diverse use cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-21T09:03:18Z)
• D-BIAS: A Causality-Based Human-in-the-Loop System for Tackling Algorithmic Bias [57.87117733071416]
  We propose D-BIAS, a visual interactive tool that embodies human-in-the-loop AI approach for auditing and mitigating social biases. A user can detect the presence of bias against a group by identifying unfair causal relationships in the causal network. For each interaction, say weakening/deleting a biased causal edge, the system uses a novel method to simulate a new (debiased) dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-10T03:41:48Z)
• Understanding Unfairness in Fraud Detection through Model and Data Bias Interactions [4.159343412286401]
  We argue that algorithmic unfairness stems from interactions between models and biases in the data. We study a set of hypotheses regarding the fairness-accuracy trade-offs that fairness-blind ML algorithms exhibit under different data bias settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-13T15:18:30Z)
• Measuring Fairness Under Unawareness of Sensitive Attributes: A Quantification-Based Approach [131.20444904674494]
  We tackle the problem of measuring group fairness under unawareness of sensitive attributes. We show that quantification approaches are particularly suited to tackle the fairness-under-unawareness problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-17T13:45:46Z)
• Promoting Fairness through Hyperparameter Optimization [4.479834103607383]
  This work explores, in the context of a real-world fraud detection application, the unfairness that emerges from traditional ML model development. We propose and evaluate fairness-aware variants of three popular HO algorithms: Fair Random Search, Fair TPE, and Fairband. We validate our approach on a real-world bank account opening fraud use case, as well as on three datasets from the fairness literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-23T17:36:22Z)
• Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty [66.17147341354577]
  We argue for considering a complementary form of transparency by estimating and communicating the uncertainty associated with model predictions. We describe how uncertainty can be used to mitigate model unfairness, augment decision-making, and build trustworthy systems. This work constitutes an interdisciplinary review drawn from literature spanning machine learning, visualization/HCI, design, decision-making, and fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-15T17:26:14Z)

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.