IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2212.09868.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Quantifying fairness and discrimination in predictive models

Author

Listed:
  • Arthur Charpentier

Abstract

The analysis of discrimination has long interested economists and lawyers. In recent years, the literature in computer science and machine learning has become interested in the subject, offering an interesting re-reading of the topic. These questions are the consequences of numerous criticisms of algorithms used to translate texts or to identify people in images. With the arrival of massive data, and the use of increasingly opaque algorithms, it is not surprising to have discriminatory algorithms, because it has become easy to have a proxy of a sensitive variable, by enriching the data indefinitely. According to Kranzberg (1986), "technology is neither good nor bad, nor is it neutral", and therefore, "machine learning won't give you anything like gender neutrality `for free' that you didn't explicitely ask for", as claimed by Kearns et a. (2019). In this article, we will come back to the general context, for predictive models in classification. We will present the main concepts of fairness, called group fairness, based on independence between the sensitive variable and the prediction, possibly conditioned on this or that information. We will finish by going further, by presenting the concepts of individual fairness. Finally, we will see how to correct a potential discrimination, in order to guarantee that a model is more ethical

Suggested Citation

  • Arthur Charpentier, 2022. "Quantifying fairness and discrimination in predictive models," Papers 2212.09868, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2212.09868
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.09868
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michel Denuit & Arthur Charpentier & Julien Trufin, 2021. "Autocalibration and Tweedie-dominance for Insurance Pricing with Machine Learning," Papers 2103.03635, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2021.
    2. J. Aislinn Bohren & Kareem Haggag & Alex Imas & Devin G. Pope, 2019. "Inaccurate Statistical Discrimination: An Identification Problem," PIER Working Paper Archive 19-010, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 17 Jul 2020.
    3. Laurence Barry & Arthur Charpentier, 2022. "The Fairness of Machine Learning in Insurance: New Rags for an Old Man?," Papers 2205.08112, arXiv.org.
    4. Richard Berk & Hoda Heidari & Shahin Jabbari & Michael Kearns & Aaron Roth, 2021. "Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Art," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 50(1), pages 3-44, February.
    5. Kerwin Kofi Charles & Jonathan Guryan, 2011. "Studying Discrimination: Fundamental Challenges and Recent Progress," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 3(1), pages 479-511, September.
    6. Denuit, Michel & Charpentier, Arthur & Trufin, Julien, 2021. "Autocalibration and Tweedie-dominance for insurance pricing with machine learning," LIDAM Discussion Papers ISBA 2021013, Université catholique de Louvain, Institute of Statistics, Biostatistics and Actuarial Sciences (ISBA).
    7. Denuit, Michel & Charpentier, Arthur & Trufin, Julien, 2021. "Autocalibration and Tweedie-dominance for insurance pricing with machine learning," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(PB), pages 485-497.
    8. R Guy Thomas, 2007. "Some Novel Perspectives on Risk Classification," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 32(1), pages 105-132, January.
    9. Arthur Charpentier & Emmanuel Flachaire & Antoine Ly, 2018. "Econometrics and Machine Learning," Economie et Statistique / Economics and Statistics, Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques (INSEE), issue 505-506, pages 147-169.
    10. Jon Kleinberg & Himabindu Lakkaraju & Jure Leskovec & Jens Ludwig & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2018. "Human Decisions and Machine Predictions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(1), pages 237-293.
    11. Phelps, Edmund S, 1972. "The Statistical Theory of Racism and Sexism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(4), pages 659-661, September.
    12. Denuit, Michel & Charpentier , Arthur & Trufin, Julien, 2021. "Autocalibration and Tweedie-dominance for insurance pricing with machine learning," LIDAM Reprints ISBA 2021049, Université catholique de Louvain, Institute of Statistics, Biostatistics and Actuarial Sciences (ISBA).
    13. Arthur Charpentier & Emmanuel Flachaire & Antoine Ly, 2017. "Econom\'etrie et Machine Learning," Papers 1708.06992, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2018.
    14. Imbens,Guido W. & Rubin,Donald B., 2015. "Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521885881.
    15. Fabian Krüger & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2021. "Generic Conditions for Forecast Dominance," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(4), pages 972-983, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Denuit, Michel & Trufin, Julien, 2022. "Autocalibration by balance correction in nonlife insurance pricing," LIDAM Discussion Papers ISBA 2022041, Université catholique de Louvain, Institute of Statistics, Biostatistics and Actuarial Sciences (ISBA).
    2. Denuit, Michel & Trufin, Julien, 2022. "Tweedie dominance for autocalibrated predictors and Laplace transform order," LIDAM Discussion Papers ISBA 2022040, Université catholique de Louvain, Institute of Statistics, Biostatistics and Actuarial Sciences (ISBA).
    3. Mario V. Wuthrich & Johanna Ziegel, 2023. "Isotonic Recalibration under a Low Signal-to-Noise Ratio," Papers 2301.02692, arXiv.org.
    4. Fissler, Tobias & Merz, Michael & Wüthrich, Mario V., 2023. "Deep quantile and deep composite triplet regression," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 94-112.
    5. Yaojun Zhang & Lanpeng Ji & Georgios Aivaliotis & Charles Taylor, 2023. "Bayesian CART models for insurance claims frequency," Papers 2303.01923, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.
    6. Shengkun Xie & Kun Shi, 2023. "Generalised Additive Modelling of Auto Insurance Data with Territory Design: A Rate Regulation Perspective," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-24, January.
    7. Denuit, Michel & Trufin, Julien & Verdebout, Thomas, 2021. "Testing for more positive expectation dependence with application to model comparison," LIDAM Discussion Papers ISBA 2021021, Université catholique de Louvain, Institute of Statistics, Biostatistics and Actuarial Sciences (ISBA).
    8. Barron, Kai & Ditlmann, Ruth & Gehrig, Stefan & Schweighofer-Kodritsch, Sebastian, 2020. "Explicit and implicit belief-based gender discrimination: A hiring experiment," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economics of Change SP II 2020-306, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    9. D'Acunto, Francesco & Ghosh, Pulak & Jain, Rajiv & Rossi, Alberto G., 2022. "How costly are cultural biases?," LawFin Working Paper Series 34, Goethe University, Center for Advanced Studies on the Foundations of Law and Finance (LawFin).
    10. Asad, Sher Afghan & Banerjee, Ritwik & Bhattacharya, Joydeep, 2020. "Do workers discriminate against their out-group employers? Evidence from the gig economy," ISU General Staff Papers 202002230800001098, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    11. Chowdhury, Shyamal & Ooi, Evarn & Slonim, Robert, 2017. "Racial discrimination and white first name adoption: a field experiment in the Australian labour market," Working Papers 2017-15, University of Sydney, School of Economics.
    12. Anthony Edo & Nicolas Jacquemet & Constantine Yannelis, 2019. "Language skills and homophilous hiring discrimination: Evidence from gender and racially differentiated applications," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 349-376, March.
    13. Sami Miaari & Asaf Zussman & Noam Zussman, 2012. "Ethnic conflict and job separations," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 25(2), pages 419-437, January.
    14. J. Michelle Brock & Ralph De Haas, 2023. "Discriminatory Lending: Evidence from Bankers in the Lab," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 31-68, April.
    15. Daniel Martin & Philip Marx, 2022. "A Robust Test of Prejudice for Discrimination Experiments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(6), pages 4527-4536, June.
    16. Markus Eyting, 2022. "Why do we Discriminate? The Role of Motivated Reasoning," Working Papers 2208, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    17. Castillo, Marco & Petrie, Ragan & Torero, Maximo & Vesterlund, Lise, 2013. "Gender differences in bargaining outcomes: A field experiment on discrimination," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 35-48.
    18. Achard, Pascal & Suetens, Sigrid, 2023. "The Causal Effect of Ethnic Diversity on Support for Redistribution and the Role of Discrimination," Other publications TiSEM a5e6e0cd-5e07-4a24-a15c-a, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. Siddique, Abu & Vlassopoulos, Michael & Zenou, Yves, 2023. "Market competition and discrimination," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    20. Eleonora Patacchini & Giuseppe Ragusa & Yves Zenou, 2015. "Unexplored dimensions of discrimination in Europe: homosexuality and physical appearance," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 28(4), pages 1045-1073, October.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2212.09868. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.