Fairness-Aware Feature Attribution for Credit Scoring: A Causal Path Decomposition Approach

Main Article Content

Minju Zhong

Abstract

Credit scoring algorithms increasingly influence financial inclusion outcomes, yet traditional approaches often encode discriminatory patterns that disadvantage protected groups. This paper presents a fairness-aware feature attribution framework that leverages causal path decomposition to distinguish legitimate predictive factors from discriminatory proxies in credit assessment. The proposed approach integrates Shapley Additive Explanations with causal directed acyclic graphs to quantify the fair and unfair contributions of each feature to credit decisions. Experimental validation on two benchmark datasets demonstrates that the framework improves the disparate impact (DI) ratio while retaining 94.2% of baseline predictive performance (AUC). The causal feature filtering mechanism identifies features whose contributions are dominated by proxy-discrimination effects. It mitigates such influence through targeted feature filtering, enabling financial institutions to develop credit-scoring algorithms that satisfy both regulatory compliance requirements and business performance objectives. This research provides practical guidance on integrating alternative data sources while preserving fairness constraints, thereby directly supporting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's algorithmic discrimination-prevention goals and the Community Reinvestment Act's financial-inclusion mandates.

Article Details

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Fairness-Aware Feature Attribution for Credit Scoring: A Causal Path Decomposition Approach. (2026). Journal of Science, Innovation & Social Impact, 1(1), 442-451. https://sagespress.com/index.php/JSISI/article/view/65

References

1. L. T. Liu, S. Dean, E. Rolf, M. Simchowitz, and M. Hardt, "Delayed impact of fair machine learning," In Proceedings of the 28th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-19), 2019, pp. 6196-6200. doi: 10.24963/ijcai.2019/862

2. S. A. Friedler, C. Scheidegger, S. Venkatasubramanian, S. Choudhary, E. P. Hamilton, and D. Roth, "A comparative study of fairness-enhancing interventions in machine learning," In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT '19), 2019, pp. 329-338. doi: 10.1145/3287560.3287589

3. J. Chen, N. Kallus, X. Mao, G. Svacha, and M. Udell, "Fairness under unawareness: Assessing disparity when protected class is unobserved," In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT '19), 2019, pp. 339-348.

4. B. Hutchinson, and M. Mitchell, "50 years of test (un)fairness: Lessons for machine learning," In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT '19), 2019, pp. 49-58.

5. R. Agarwal, L. Melnick, N. Frosst, X. Zhang, B. Lengerich, R. Caruana, and G. E. Hinton, "Neural additive models: Interpretable machine learning with neural nets," In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (NeurIPS 2021), 2021, pp. 4699-4711.

6. X. Hu, C. Rudin, and M. Seltzer, "Optimal sparse decision trees," In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 (NeurIPS 2019), 2019, pp. 7265-7273.

7. L. Semenova, C. Rudin, and R. Parr, "On the existence of simpler machine learning models," In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT '22), 2022, pp. 1827-1858. doi: 10.1145/3531146.3533232

8. A. H. Karimi, B. Schölkopf, and I. Valera, "Algorithmic recourse: From counterfactual explanations to interventions," In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT '21), 2021, pp. 353-362.

9. S. Chiappa, "Path-specific counterfactual fairness," In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-19), 33(01), 7801-7808., 2019. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33017801

10. Y. Wu, L. Zhang, X. Wu, and H. Tong, "PC-Fairness: A unified framework for measuring causality-based fairness," In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 (NeurIPS 2019), 2019, pp. 3399-3409.

11. H. Nilforoshan, J. D. Gaebler, R. Shroff, and S. Goel, "Causal conceptions of fairness and their consequences," In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2022), PMLR 162, 2022, pp. 16848-16887.

12. E. Black, J. L. Koepke, P. Kim, S. Barocas, and M. Hsu, "Operationalizing the search for less discriminatory alternatives in fair lending," In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT '24), 2024, pp. 1-15.

13. K. Lam, "A framework for assurance audits of algorithmic systems," In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT '24)., 2024. doi: 10.1145/3630106.3658957

14. A. Kasirzadeh, and A. Smart, "The use and misuse of counterfactuals of ethical machine learning," In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT '21), 2021, pp. 228-238.

15. C. Oh, H. Won, J. So, T. Kim, Y. Kim, H. Choi, and K. Song, "Learning fair representation via distributional contrastive disentanglement," In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD '22), 2022, pp. 1342-1351.