Recoverability of market-wide fair insurance premiums under selection bias

Our article, Recoverability of market-wide fair insurance premiums under selection bias, with Marie-Pier Côté and Olivier Côté, was published in Insurance: Mathematics & Economics.

Fairness adjustments in insurance pricing are defined relative to a reference population, i.e., to a joint distribution of (X, D, Y) where X are rating factors, D protected attributes, and Y is claim amount. Because an insurer’s portfolio is generally a selected subpopulation, portfolio and population reference distributions typically differ, so portfolio-calibrated and population-calibrated fairness adjustments need not coincide. In what follows, we use selection bias as an umbrella term for any discrepancy between an observed sample and its target population. We call portfolio composition bias the insurance-specific form of selection bias induced by the portfolio inclusion mechanism (underwriting/marketing), which makes each insurer’s portfolio a selected subpopulation. Relying on causal inference and a portfolio composition indicator, we characterize how portfolio composition bias affects common premium adjustments (unawareness, discrimination-free pricing, and transport-based corrective pricing), and we provide restrictive conditions under which portfolio and population adjustments coincide. We propose estimators to recover the fairness-adjusted premiums on the regulator-intended target population from selection-biased data, by using externally available information on the population marginal distribution of the prohibited attribute D. We study this scope mismatch from the policyholder’s perspective: we model the market premium faced by a newly entering policyholder (not yet assigned to any portfolio) as a mixture of insurer-specific premiums, weighted by the probability of being assigned to each insurer. Under this view, a pricing rule can satisfy a fairness criterion within each insurer’s portfolio yet produce direct or proxy discrimination in the market when portfolio inclusion depends on X and/or D. Finally, we show that enforcing portfolio-level balance on population-intended fair premiums can reintroduce portfolio composition bias, highlighting a regulatory trade-off between portfolio balancing and market-wide fairness. We focus on recoverability: which population-level fairness targets are identifiable from portfolio data, and what minimal external information is required to recover them.

Perceived Fairness in Networks

Last week, the paper Perceived fairness in networks was published in Network Science.

The usual definitions of algorithmic fairness focus on population-level statistics, such as demographic parity or equal opportunity. However, in many social or economic contexts, fairness is not perceived globally, but locally, through an individual’s peer network and comparisons. We propose a theoretical model of perceived fairness networks, in which each individual’s sense of discrimination depends on the local topology of interactions. We show that even if a decision rule satisfies standard criteria of fairness, perceived discrimination can persist or even increase in the presence of homophily or assortative mixing. We propose a formalism for the concept of fairness perception, linking network structure, local observation, and social perception. Analytical and simulation results highlight how network topology affects the divergence between objective fairness and perceived fairness, with implications for algorithmic governance and applications in finance and collaborative insurance.