Fairness centres on people. In insurance, the scope of fairness should be the entire insured population, not solely an insurer’s clients. However, each insurance company’s portfolio represents a possibly skewed subsample. Models fit to these selection-biased data do not generalise well for the broader population of insureds. Two biases stem from portfolio composition: representation bias, when large prediction errors are made on individuals from subpopulations infrequently observed, and selection bias, when underwriting and marketing skew the portfolio away from the insured population. We examine how portfolio composition affects fair premium methodologies for mitigating direct and indirect discrimination on a protected attribute. We illustrate how unfairness mitigation based on a selection-biased portfolio does not yield a fair market from the perspective of insureds. Relying on causal inference and a portfolio composition indicator, we describe the selection mechanism and determine conditions under which each bias affects various fairness-adjusted premiums. We propose a method to recover the population-wide fairness-adjusted premiums from selection-biased data, by using a (third-party provided) unbiased estimate of the prohibited attribute distribution. We show that this approach effectively mitigates selection bias but leads to overall premiums that are not balanced. In a limiting case, we show that portfolio-specific fairness-aware premiums can lead to a market-wide unawareness strategy: portfolio composition opens the back door to proxy discrimination.
In many jurisdictions, insurance companies must not discriminate on some given policyholder characteristics. Omission of prohibited variables from models prevents direct discrimination, but fails to address proxy discrimination, a phenomenon especially prevalent when powerful predictive algorithms are fed with an abundance of acceptable covariates. The lack of formal definition for key fairness concepts, in particular indirect discrimination, hinders the fairness assessment of methodologies. We review causal inference notions and introduce a causal graph tailored for fairness in insurance. Exploiting these, we discuss potential sources of bias, formally define direct and indirect discrimination, and study the properties of fairness methodologies. A novel categorization of fair methodologies into five families (best-estimate, unaware, aware, hyperaware, and corrective) is constructed based on their expected fairness properties. A comprehensive pedagogical example illustrates the practical implications of our findings: the interplay between our fair score families, group fairness criteria, and sources of discrimination.
This morning, I will be giving a talk for the Thelem-ILB Chaire (Thelem – historically compagnie d’assurance mutuelle contre l’incendie dans le département du Loiret – founded in 1820, one of France’s oldest companies), on fairness and discrimination in insurance, and more specifically on counterfactual fairness, and causal graphs. It is based on recent work with Olivier Côté, our PhD student in Laval (Québec), co-supervised with Marie-Pier,
Demain matin, avec Olivier et Marie-Pier Côté, on sera chez l’assureur Intact pour parler équité et discrimination. Olivier présentera ses travaux récents sur l’utilisation de modèles causaux pour proposer des modèles “équitables” en assurance. Le papier (a fair price to pay: exploiting directed acyclic graphs for fairness in insurance) sera bientôt disponible !
Many jurisdictions have laws or guidelines stipulating that insurance companies must not discriminate on some specified policyholder characteristics. Omission of the prohibited variables from the models removes direct discrimination, but does not prevent proxy discrimination — a phenomenon especially prevalent when powerful predictive algorithms are fed with an abundance of allowed covariates. In the actuarial literature, there remains some confusion on the definition of indirect discrimination: this impedes the understanding of the goals of each fairness methodology and their comparison. In the causal inference literature, many tools, such as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), help uncover various types of biases. A DAG describes the causal relationships between variables of interest and has clear dependence implications. We exploit this tool for fairness to formally define direct and indirect discrimination, to discuss potential sources of bias, and to understand the properties of different fairness methodologies. Four families of fair scores (best-estimate, unaware, aware and corrective) are placed in the DAG representing the insurance pricing problem. This allows us to study their behaviour in terms of direct and indirect discrimination. A comprehensive pedagogical example illustrates our findings.
More to come soon…
"sendo l'intento mio scrivere cosa utile a chi la intende…"
