arXiv AI By Vedant Palit, Udvas Das, Brahim Driss, Debabrota Basu

Simulating Eutopia: Revisiting Long-term Fairness with Outcomes, Performativity, and Dynamics

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2607. 19389v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As AI-driven Decision Makers (ADMs) influence our socioeconomic reality, their roles in both enhancing efficiency and amplifying the social biases have drawn attention.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 14

Decomposing Discrimination: Causal Mediation Analysis for AI-Driven Credit Decisions

The paper introduces a causal mediation framework to separate direct discrimination from structural inequality in AI-driven credit decisions. Using Pearl’s natural direct and indirect effects, it presents an identification strategy under treatment‑induced confounding and proposes a doubly‑robust estimator with efficiency guarantees. Empirical analysis of 89,465 mortgage applications shows that about 77% of racial denial disparities stem from financial mediators, while the remaining 23% represents a conservative lower bound on direct discrimination.

By Duraimurugan Rajamanickam
arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 9

A Distributionally Robust Optimisation Approach to Fair Credit Scoring

arXiv:2402. 01811v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Credit scoring has been catalogued by the European Commission and the Executive Office of the US President as a high-risk classification task, in light of the potential harms of making loan approval decisions based on models that would be biased against certain groups.

By Pablo Casas, Huan Yu, Christophe Mues
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 18

When fairness metrics fail: A utility-based perspective on $\varepsilon$-fairness

The paper argues that traditional probabilistic fairness metrics can miss significant disparities in the actual consequences of decisions. By introducing a utility-based framework, the authors show that a process can satisfy ε-fairness yet still be maximally unfair when utilities are considered. They apply this framework to college admissions and credit‑risk assessment, demonstrating that equalizing probabilities alone may mask unequal utility outcomes across groups.

By Tolulope Fadina, Thorsten Schmidt