Discrimination-free Pricing with Privatized Sensitive Attributes
Tianhe Zhang, Suhan Liu, Peng Shi
OpenReview ground truth
Abstract
Fairness has emerged as a critical consideration in the landscape of machine learning algorithms, particularly as AI continue to transform decision-making across societal domains. To ensure that these algorithms are free from bias and do not discriminate against individuals based on sensitive attributes such as gender and race, the field of algorithmic biasness has introduced various fairness concepts, including demographic parity and equalized odds, along with methodologies to achieve these notions in different contexts. Despite the rapid advancement in this field, not all sectors have embraced these fairness principles to the same extent. One specific sector that merits attention in this regard is insurance. Within the realm of insurance pricing, fairness is defined through a distinct and specialized framework. Consequently, achieving fairness according to established notions does not automatically ensure fair pricing. In particular, the regulatory bodies are increasingly emphasizing transparency in pricing algorithms and imposing constraints for insurance companies on the collection and utilization of sensitive consumer attributes. These factors present additional challenges in the implementation of fairness in pricing algorithms. To address these complexities and comply with regulatory demands, we propose a straightforward method for constructing fair models that align with the specific fairness criteria unique to the insurance pricing domain. Notably, our approach only relies on privatized sensitive attributes and offers statistical guarantees. Further, it does not require insurers to have direct access to sensitive attributes, and it can be tailored to accommodate varying levels of transparency as required. This methodology seeks to meet the growing demands for privacy and transparency set forth by regulators while ensuring fairness in insurance pricing practices.
Author context
Most prolific author: 1 submissions (credibility 1.00).
No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).
Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.
Ranking trajectory
Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.
Battle history — 34 comparisons
Ranked above opponent in 31% of matchups.
- ▼ lost to ConjNorm: Tractable Density Estimation for… ×4
- ▼ lost to SpecFormer: Guarding Vision Transformer Ro… ×4
- ▲ beat Detecting Shortcuts using Mutual Informati… ×4
- ▼ lost to Improving Private Training via In-distribu… ×4
- ▲ beat Culture in Artificial Intelligence: A Lite… ×4
Judge assessments
Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 34)