mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Equalizing Credit Opportunity in Algorithms: Aligning Algorithmic Fairness Research with U.S. Fair Lending Regulation

arXiv 2210.02516 ↗First posted 5 Oct 2022cs.LG cs.CYcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Credit is an essential component of financial wellbeing in America, and unequal access to it is a large factor in the economic disparities between demographic groups that exist today. Today, machine learning algorithms, sometimes trained on alternative data, are increasingly being used to determine access to credit, yet research has shown that machine learning can encode many different versions of "unfairness," thus raising the concern that banks and other financial institutions could -- potentially unwittingly -- engage in illegal discrimination through the use of this technology. In the US, there are laws in place to make sure discrimination does not happen in lending and agencies charged with enforcing them. However, conversations around fair credit models in computer science and in policy are often misaligned: fair machine learning research often lacks legal and practical considerations specific to existing fair lending policy, and regulators have yet to issue new guidance on how, if at all, credit risk models should be utilizing practices and techniques from the research community. This paper aims to better align these sides of the conversation. We describe the current state of credit discrimination regulation in the United States, contextualize results from fair ML research to identify the specific fairness concerns raised by the use of machine learning in lending, and discuss regulatory opportunities to address these concerns.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 94 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Oct 2022.

Builds on

21 of 94 references.

References · 21

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  2. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
  3. 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
  4. 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 671
  5. 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 582
  6. 2018All Models are Wrong, but Many are Useful: Learning a Variable's Importance by Studying an Entire Class of Prediction Models Simultaneouslycited by 364
  7. 2018A comparative study of fairness-enhancing interventions in machine learningcited by 208
  8. 2018Delayed Impact of Fair Machine Learningcited by 183
  9. 2018Why Is My Classifier Discriminatory?cited by 143
  10. 2019On the Apparent Conflict Between Individual and Group Fairnesscited by 126
  11. 201850 Years of Test (Un)fairness: Lessons for Machine Learningcited by 101
  12. 2018Fairness Under Unawareness: Assessing Disparity When Protected Class Is Unobservedcited by 94
9 more
  1. 2021Characterizing Fairness Over the Set of Good Models Under Selective Labelscited by 65
  2. 2021Fairness in Credit Scoring: Assessment, Implementation and Profit Implicationscited by 65
  3. 2019Counterfactual Risk Assessments, Evaluation, and Fairnesscited by 59
  4. 2018Residual Unfairness in Fair Machine Learning from Prejudiced Datacited by 49
  5. 2019Fair Classification and Social Welfarecited by 40
  6. 2019Awareness in Practice: Tensions in Access to Sensitive Attribute Data for Antidiscriminationcited by 23
  7. 2021Epistemic values in feature importance methods: Lessons from feminist epistemologycited by 11
  8. 2021How Costly is Noise? Data and Disparities in Consumer Creditcited by 8
  9. 2019Bias In, Bias Out? Evaluating the Folk Wisdomcited by 7

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 2; 2024: 4; 2025: 2.

9 papers.