Abstract:Problem definition : We use a realistically large, publicly available data set from a global fintech lender to simulate the impact of different antidiscrimination laws and their corresponding data management and model-building regimes on gender-based discrimination in the nonmortgage fintech lending setting. Academic/practical relevance : Our paper extends the conceptual understanding of model-based discrimination from computer science to a realistic context that simulates the situations faced by fintech lenders in practice, where advanced machine learning (ML) techniques are used with high-dimensional, feature-rich, highly multicollinear data. We provide technically and legally permissible approaches for firms to reduce discrimination across different antidiscrimination regimes whilst managing profitability. Methodology : We train statistical and ML models on a large and realistically rich publicly available data set to simulate different antidiscrimination regimes and measure their impact on model quality and firm profitability. We use ML explainability techniques to understand the drivers of ML discrimination. Results : We find that regimes that prohibit the use of gender (like those in the United States) substantially increase discrimination and slightly decrease firm profitability. We observe that ML models are less discriminatory, of better predictive quality, and more profitable compared with traditional statistical models like logistic regression. Unlike omitted variable bias—which drives discrimination in statistical models—ML discrimination is driven by changes in the model training procedure, including feature engineering and feature selection, when gender is excluded. We observe that down sampling the training data to rebalance gender, gender-aware hyperparameter selection, and up sampling the training data to rebalance gender all reduce discrimination, with varying trade-offs in predictive quality and firm profitability. Probabilistic gender proxy modeling (imputing applicant gender) further reduces discrimination with negligible impact on predictive quality and a slight increase in firm profitability. Managerial implications : A rethink is required of the antidiscrimination laws, specifically with respect to the collection and use of protected attributes for ML models. Firms should be able to collect protected attributes to, at minimum, measure discrimination and ideally, take steps to reduce it. Increased data access should come with greater accountability for firms.

What is fair? Proxy discrimination vs. demographic disparities in insurance pricing

A Discussion of Discrimination and Fairness in Insurance Pricing

AI and ethics in insurance: a new solution to mitigate proxy discrimination in risk modeling

Melting contestation: insurance fairness and machine learning

The Fairness of Machine Learning in Insurance: New Rags for an Old Man?

A Fair Pricing Model via Adversarial Learning

Counterfactual Fairness Is Basically Demographic Parity

Insurance Discrimination and Fairness in Machine Learning: An Ethical Analysis

Assessing Algorithmic Fairness with Unobserved Protected Class Using Data Combination

A multi-task network approach for calculating discrimination-free insurance prices

Parametric Fairness with Statistical Guarantees

An Empirical Characterization of Fair Machine Learning For Clinical Risk Prediction

Comparing Fairness Criteria Based on Social Outcome

Unlawful Proxy Discrimination: A Framework for Challenging Inherently Discriminatory Algorithms

Compatibility of Fairness Metrics with EU Non-Discrimination Laws: Demographic Parity & Conditional Demographic Disparity

Group fairness without demographics using social networks

Antidiscrimination Laws, Artificial Intelligence, and Gender Bias: A Case Study in Nonmortgage Fintech Lending

Weak Proxies are Sufficient and Preferable for Fairness with Missing Sensitive Attributes

Optimisation Strategies for Ensuring Fairness in Machine Learning: With and Without Demographics

An Introduction to Artificial Intelligence and Solutions to the Problems of Algorithmic Discrimination

How Do Fairness Definitions Fare? Examining Public Attitudes Towards Algorithmic Definitions of Fairness