Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3366424.3383557acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesthewebconfConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Fairness of Classification Using Users’ Social Relationships in Online Peer-To-Peer Lending

Published: 20 April 2020 Publication History

Abstract

Peer-to-peer (P2P) lending marketplaces on the Web have been growing over the last decade. By providing online platforms, P2P lending enables individuals to borrow and lend money directly from and to one another. Since the applicants on P2P lending platforms may lack sufficient financial history for assessment, quite a few P2P lending service providers have been utilizing the applicants’ social relationships to improve the risk prediction accuracy of loan applications. However, utilizing the information of applicants’ social relationships may introduce discrimination in prediction. In this paper, we analyze and evaluate the impact of the applicants’ social relationships on the fairness of risk prediction for P2P lending. We investigate over a million loan records collected from Prosper.com, one of the leading P2P lending companies in the world. We construct the Prosper social network of loan borrowers and lenders, and generate the social features of applicants by adapting a state-of-the-art social credit scoring scheme to the Prosper social network. We consider two types of fairness notions in the literature, namely individual fairness and counterfactual fairness. Our results demonstrate that the social score harms both individual and counterfactual fairness of classification. To address this issue, we design two new algorithms that mitigate bias by generalizing social features. Our experimental results show that our mitigation algorithms can reduce bias while utilizing social scores effectively.

References

[1]
[n.d.]. FriendlyScore Inc.https://friendlyscore.com/.
[2]
[n.d.]. LendingClub Corporation: Peer-to-peer lending platform. https://www.lendingclub.com/.
[3]
Dries F Benoit and Dirk Van den Poel. 2012. Improving customer retention in financial services using kinship network information. Expert Systems with Applications 39, 13 (2012), 11435–11442.
[4]
Toon Calders, Faisal Kamiran, and Mykola Pechenizkiy. 2009. Building classifiers with independency constraints. In 2009 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops. IEEE, 13–18.
[5]
Toon Calders and Sicco Verwer. 2010. Three naive Bayes approaches for discrimination-free classification. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 21, 2 (2010), 277–292.
[6]
Alexandra Chouldechova. 2017. Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. Big data 5, 2 (2017), 153–163.
[7]
Michael Chui 2013. Social media to boost financial services. InFinance: The Magazine for Finsia Members 127, 2 (2013), 34.
[8]
Pam Dixon and Robert Gellman. 2014. The Scoring of America: How. In World Privacy Forum.
[9]
Cynthia Dwork, Moritz Hardt, Toniann Pitassi, Omer Reingold, and Richard Zemel. 2012. Fairness through awareness. In Proceedings of the 3rd innovations in theoretical computer science conference. 214–226.
[10]
Michael Feldman, Sorelle A Friedler, John Moeller, Carlos Scheidegger, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian. 2015. Certifying and removing disparate impact. In Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, 259–268.
[11]
Seth Freedman and Ginger Zhe Jin. 2008. Do social networks solve information problems for peer-to-peer lending? Evidence from prosper. com. (2008).
[12]
Sahaj Garg, Vincent Perot, Nicole Limtiaco, Ankur Taly, Ed H Chi, and Alex Beutel. 2019. Counterfactual fairness in text classification through robustness. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 219–226.
[13]
Gabriel Goh, Andrew Cotter, Maya Gupta, and Michael P Friedlander. 2016. Satisfying real-world goals with dataset constraints. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2415–2423.
[14]
Nina Grgic-Hlaca, Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Krishna P Gummadi, and Adrian Weller. 2016. The case for process fairness in learning: Feature selection for fair decision making. In NIPS Symposium on Machine Learning and the Law, Vol. 1. 2.
[15]
Michael Haenlein. 2011. A social network analysis of customer-level revenue distribution. Marketing Letters 22, 1 (2011), 15–29.
[16]
Moritz Hardt, Eric Price, Nati Srebro, 2016. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 3315–3323.
[17]
Yansong Hu and Christophe Van den Bulte. 2014. Nonmonotonic status effects in new product adoption. Marketing Science 33, 4 (2014), 509–533.
[18]
Patrick Jenkins. 2014. Big data lends new zest to banks’ credit judgments. Financial Times 23(2014).
[19]
Faisal Kamiran and Toon Calders. 2009. Classifying without discriminating. In 2009 2nd International Conference on Computer, Control and Communication. IEEE, 1–6.
[20]
Toshihiro Kamishima, Shotaro Akaho, Hideki Asoh, and Jun Sakuma. 2012. Fairness-aware classifier with prejudice remover regularizer. In Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Springer, 35–50.
[21]
Jon M. Kleinberg, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Manish Raghavan. 2017. Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores. In 8th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, ITCS. 43:1–43:23.
[22]
Matt J Kusner, Joshua Loftus, Chris Russell, and Ricardo Silva. 2017. Counterfactual fairness. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 4066–4076.
[23]
Mingfeng Lin, Nagpurnanand R Prabhala, and Siva Viswanathan. 2009. Judging borrowers by the company they keep: Social networks and adverse selection in online peer-to-peer lending. Ssrn Elibrary (2009).
[24]
Steve Lohr. 2015. Banking start-ups adopt new tools for lending. New York Times 18(2015).
[25]
Tian Lu, Yingjie Zhang, and Beibei Li. 2019. The Value of Alternative Data in Credit Risk Prediction: Evidence from a Large Field Experiment. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2019, Munich, Germany, December 15-18, 2019.
[26]
Sunil Madhu, Giacomo Pallotti, Edward J Romano, and Alexander K Chavez. 2016. Risk assessment using social networking data. US Patent 9,300,676.
[27]
Frank Pasquale. 2015. The black box society. Harvard University Press.
[28]
Novi Quadrianto and Viktoriia Sharmanska. 2017. Recycling privileged learning and distribution matching for fairness. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 677–688.
[29]
Evelyn M Rusli. 2013. Bad credit? Start tweeting. WALL Street Journal, April 1 (2013).
[30]
Dara Schniederjans, Edita S Cao, and Marc Schniederjans. 2013. Enhancing financial performance with social media: An impression management perspective. Decision Support Systems 55, 4 (2013), 911–918.
[31]
Vladimir Vapnik and Akshay Vashist. 2009. A new learning paradigm: Learning using privileged information. Neural networks 22, 5-6 (2009), 544–557.
[32]
Yanhao Wei, Pinar Yildirim, Christophe Van den Bulte, and Chrysanthos Dellarocas. 2015. Credit scoring with social network data. Marketing Science 35, 2 (2015), 234–258.
[33]
Blake Woodworth, Suriya Gunasekar, Mesrob I Ohannessian, and Nathan Srebro. 2017. Learning non-discriminatory predictors. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.06081(2017).
[34]
Xiujuan Xu, Chunguang Zhou, and Zhe Wang. 2009. Credit scoring algorithm based on link analysis ranking with support vector machine. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 2 (2009), 2625–2632.
[35]
Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Isabel Valera, Manuel Gomez Rodriguez, and Krishna P Gummadi. 2017. Fairness beyond disparate treatment & disparate impact: Learning classification without disparate mistreatment. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web. 1171–1180.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Your Neighbor Matters: Towards Fair Decisions Under Networked InterferenceProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining10.1145/3637528.3671960(3829-3840)Online publication date: 25-Aug-2024
  • (2024)Fairness issues, current approaches, and challenges in machine learning modelsInternational Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics10.1007/s13042-023-02083-215:8(3095-3125)Online publication date: 31-Jan-2024
  • (2023)Underdog mentality, identity discrimination and access to peer-to-peer lending market: Exploring effects of digital authenticationJournal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money10.1016/j.intfin.2022.10171483(101714)Online publication date: Mar-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Fairness of Classification Using Users’ Social Relationships in Online Peer-To-Peer Lending
          Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Information & Contributors

          Information

          Published In

          cover image ACM Conferences
          WWW '20: Companion Proceedings of the Web Conference 2020
          April 2020
          854 pages
          ISBN:9781450370240
          DOI:10.1145/3366424
          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Sponsors

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          Published: 20 April 2020

          Permissions

          Request permissions for this article.

          Check for updates

          Author Tags

          1. Algorithmic fairness
          2. machine learning
          3. social network

          Qualifiers

          • Research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Conference

          WWW '20
          Sponsor:
          WWW '20: The Web Conference 2020
          April 20 - 24, 2020
          Taipei, Taiwan

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate 1,899 of 8,196 submissions, 23%

          Contributors

          Other Metrics

          Bibliometrics & Citations

          Bibliometrics

          Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)50
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4
          Reflects downloads up to 04 Oct 2024

          Other Metrics

          Citations

          Cited By

          View all
          • (2024)Your Neighbor Matters: Towards Fair Decisions Under Networked InterferenceProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining10.1145/3637528.3671960(3829-3840)Online publication date: 25-Aug-2024
          • (2024)Fairness issues, current approaches, and challenges in machine learning modelsInternational Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics10.1007/s13042-023-02083-215:8(3095-3125)Online publication date: 31-Jan-2024
          • (2023)Underdog mentality, identity discrimination and access to peer-to-peer lending market: Exploring effects of digital authenticationJournal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money10.1016/j.intfin.2022.10171483(101714)Online publication date: Mar-2023
          • (2022)FairRoad: Achieving Fairness for Recommender Systems with Optimized Antidote DataProceedings of the 27th ACM on Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies10.1145/3532105.3535023(173-184)Online publication date: 7-Jun-2022
          • (2022)iFiG: Individually Fair Multi-view Graph Clustering2022 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data)10.1109/BigData55660.2022.10020548(329-338)Online publication date: 17-Dec-2022
          • (2022)Algorithmic fairness datasets: the story so farData Mining and Knowledge Discovery10.1007/s10618-022-00854-z36:6(2074-2152)Online publication date: 17-Sep-2022
          • (2021)A Review of Gender Bias Mitigation in Credit Scoring Models2021 Ethics and Explainability for Responsible Data Science (EE-RDS)10.1109/EE-RDS53766.2021.9708589(1-10)Online publication date: 27-Oct-2021
          • (2021)Explaining classification performance and bias via network structure and sampling techniqueApplied Network Science10.1007/s41109-021-00394-36:1Online publication date: 21-Oct-2021
          • (2021)Mitigating Bias in Online Microfinance Platforms: A Case Study on Kiva.orgECML PKDD 2020 Workshops10.1007/978-3-030-65965-3_6(75-91)Online publication date: 2-Feb-2021

          View Options

          Get Access

          Login options

          View options

          PDF

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          HTML Format

          View this article in HTML Format.

          HTML Format

          Media

          Figures

          Other

          Tables

          Share

          Share

          Share this Publication link

          Share on social media