Accept or Deny? Evaluating LLM Fairness and Performance in Loan Approval across Table-to-Text Serialization Approaches

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.21512v1
• Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 10:51:41 GMT
• Title: Accept or Deny? Evaluating LLM Fairness and Performance in Loan Approval across Table-to-Text Serialization Approaches
• Authors: Israel Abebe Azime, Deborah D. Kanubala, Tejumade Afonja, Mario Fritz, Isabel Valera, Dietrich Klakow, Philipp Slusallek,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed in high-stakes decision-making tasks, such as loan approvals.<n>We assess the performance and fairness of LLMs on serialized loan approval datasets from Ghana, Germany, and the United States.
• Score: 57.5863675268117
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed in high-stakes decision-making tasks, such as loan approvals. While their applications expand across domains, LLMs struggle to process tabular data, ensuring fairness and delivering reliable predictions. In this work, we assess the performance and fairness of LLMs on serialized loan approval datasets from three geographically distinct regions: Ghana, Germany, and the United States. Our evaluation focuses on the model's zero-shot and in-context learning (ICL) capabilities. Our results reveal that the choice of serialization (Serialization refers to the process of converting tabular data into text formats suitable for processing by LLMs.) format significantly affects both performance and fairness in LLMs, with certain formats such as GReat and LIFT yielding higher F1 scores but exacerbating fairness disparities. Notably, while ICL improved model performance by 4.9-59.6% relative to zero-shot baselines, its effect on fairness varied considerably across datasets. Our work underscores the importance of effective tabular data representation methods and fairness-aware models to improve the reliability of LLMs in financial decision-making.

Related papers

• Learn More, Forget Less: A Gradient-Aware Data Selection Approach for LLM [51.21051698747157]
  We propose a self-adaptive gradient-aware data selection approach (GrADS) for supervised fine-tuning of large language models (LLMs)<n>Specifically, we design self-guided criteria that leverage the magnitude and statistical distribution of gradients to prioritize examples that contribute the most to the model's learning process.<n>Through extensive experimentation with various LLMs across diverse domains such as medicine, law, and finance, GrADS has demonstrated significant efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-07T08:34:50Z)
• Does Model Size Matter? A Comparison of Small and Large Language Models for Requirements Classification [4.681300232651754]
  Large language models (LLMs) show notable results in natural language processing (NLP) tasks for requirements engineering (RE)<n>In contrast, small language models (SLMs) offer a lightweight, locally deployable alternative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T13:20:30Z)
• Verifying the Verifiers: Unveiling Pitfalls and Potentials in Fact Verifiers [59.168391398830515]
  We evaluate 12 pre-trained LLMs and one specialized fact-verifier, using a collection of examples from 14 fact-checking benchmarks.<n>We highlight the importance of addressing annotation errors and ambiguity in datasets.<n> frontier LLMs with few-shot in-context examples, often overlooked in previous works, achieve top-tier performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-16T10:32:10Z)
• LLMs as Data Annotators: How Close Are We to Human Performance [47.61698665650761]
  Manual annotation of data is labor-intensive, time-consuming, and costly.<n>In-context learning (ICL) in which some examples related to the task are given in the prompt can lead to inefficiencies and suboptimal model performance.<n>This paper presents experiments comparing several LLMs, considering different embedding models, across various datasets for the Named Entity Recognition (NER) task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T11:11:07Z)
• The Other Side of the Coin: Exploring Fairness in Retrieval-Augmented Generation [73.16564415490113]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) enhances Large Language Models (LLMs) by retrieving relevant document from external knowledge sources.<n>We propose two approaches, FairFT and FairFilter, to mitigate the fairness issues introduced by RAG for small-scale LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-11T10:17:10Z)
• LLMs are Also Effective Embedding Models: An In-depth Overview [41.34518828980852]
  Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing by achieving state-of-the-art performance across various tasks.<n>Recently, their effectiveness as embedding models has gained attention, marking a paradigm shift from traditional encoder-only models like ELMo and BERT to decoder-only, large-scale LLMs like GPT, LLaMA, and Mistral.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-17T06:48:24Z)
• LLM-Forest: Ensemble Learning of LLMs with Graph-Augmented Prompts for Data Imputation [50.375567142250446]
  Large language models (LLMs), trained on vast corpora, have shown strong potential in data generation.<n>We propose a novel framework, LLM-Forest, which introduces a "forest" of few-shot prompt learning LLM "trees" with their outputs aggregated via confidence-based weighted voting.<n>This framework is established on a new concept of bipartite information graphs to identify high-quality relevant neighboring entries with both feature and value granularity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-28T20:42:46Z)
• Through the Thicket: A Study of Number-Oriented LLMs derived from Random Forest Models [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown exceptional performance in text processing. This paper proposes a novel approach to training LLMs using knowledge transfer from a random forest (RF) ensemble. We generate outputs for fine-tuning, enhancing the model's ability to classify and explain its decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-07T13:31:51Z)
• Do Large Language Models Rank Fairly? An Empirical Study on the Fairness of LLMs as Rankers [27.66626125248612]
  This paper presents an empirical study evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) using the TREC Fair Ranking dataset. We focus on the representation of binary protected attributes such as gender and geographic location, which are historically underrepresented in search outcomes. Our analysis delves into how these LLMs handle queries and documents related to these attributes, aiming to uncover biases in their ranking algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T04:23:19Z)
• Survey on Factuality in Large Language Models: Knowledge, Retrieval and Domain-Specificity [61.54815512469125]
  This survey addresses the crucial issue of factuality in Large Language Models (LLMs) As LLMs find applications across diverse domains, the reliability and accuracy of their outputs become vital.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T14:18:03Z)
• Large Language Models as Data Preprocessors [9.99065004972981]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have marked a significant advancement in artificial intelligence. This study explores their potential in data preprocessing, a critical stage in data mining and analytics applications. We propose an LLM-based framework for data preprocessing, which integrates cutting-edge prompt engineering techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-30T23:28:43Z)
• From Quantity to Quality: Boosting LLM Performance with Self-Guided Data Selection for Instruction Tuning [52.257422715393574]
  We introduce a self-guided methodology for Large Language Models (LLMs) to autonomously discern and select cherry samples from open-source datasets. Our key innovation, the Instruction-Following Difficulty (IFD) metric, emerges as a pivotal metric to identify discrepancies between a model's expected responses and its intrinsic generation capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T09:45:29Z)

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.