arXiv subjects

Madison Coots

Publications and source records attributed to Madison Coots.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2025

Algorithmic Bias in Lending: Evidence from a Fintech Audit

Algorithmic lending has transformed the consumer credit landscape, with machine learning models commonly facilitating underwriting decisions. To comply with fair lending laws, these algorithms exclude legally protected characteristics, such as race and gender. Yet algorithmic underwriting can still inadvertently favor certain groups, prompting concerns about whether lending algorithms exhibit discriminatory behavior. Using proprietary loan-level data from a major U.S. fintech platform, we audit lending decisions across approximately 80,000 personal loans. We find that loans made to men and Black borrowers yielded lower profits than loans to other groups, suggesting that men and Black borrowers benefited from relatively favorable pricing. We trace these disparities to miscalibration in the platform's underwriting model, which overestimates risk for women and underestimates risk for Black borrowers. We then show that one could correct this miscalibration -- and the corresponding disparities -- by including race and gender in underwriting models, illustrating a tension between competing notions of fairness.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2023

Automated Reminders Reduce Incarceration for Missed Court Dates: Evidence from a Text Message Experiment

Millions of Americans must attend mandatory court dates every year. To boost appearance rates, jurisdictions nationwide are increasingly turning to automated reminders, but previous research offers mixed evidence on their effectiveness. In partnership with the Santa Clara County Public Defender Office, we randomly assigned 5,709 public defender clients to either receive automated text message reminders (treatment) or not receive reminders (control). We found that reminders reduced warrants issued for missed court dates by approximately 20%, with 12.1% of clients in the control condition issued a warrant compared to 9.7% of clients in the treatment condition. We further found that incarceration from missed court dates dropped by a similar amount, from 6.2% in the control condition to 4.8% in the treatment condition. Our results provide evidence that automated reminders can help people avoid the negative consequences of missing court.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2023

Reevaluating the Role of Race and Ethnicity in Diabetes Screening

There is active debate over whether to consider patient race and ethnicity when estimating disease risk. By accounting for race and ethnicity, it is possible to improve the accuracy of risk predictions, but there is concern that their use may encourage a racialized view of medicine. In diabetes risk models, despite substantial gains in statistical accuracy from using race and ethnicity, the gains in clinical utility are surprisingly modest. These modest clinical gains stem from two empirical patterns: first, the vast majority of individuals receive the same screening recommendation regardless of whether race or ethnicity are included in risk models; and second, for those who do receive different screening recommendations, the difference in utility between screening and not screening is relatively small. Our results are based on broad statistical principles, and so are likely to generalize to many other risk-based clinical decisions.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2023

Designing Equitable Algorithms

Predictive algorithms are now used to help distribute a large share of our society's resources and sanctions, such as healthcare, loans, criminal detentions, and tax audits. Under the right circumstances, these algorithms can improve the efficiency and equity of decision-making. At the same time, there is a danger that the algorithms themselves could entrench and exacerbate disparities, particularly along racial, ethnic, and gender lines. To help ensure their fairness, many researchers suggest that algorithms be subject to at least one of three constraints: (1) no use of legally protected features, such as race, ethnicity, and gender; (2) equal rates of "positive" decisions across groups; and (3) equal error rates across groups. Here we show that these constraints, while intuitively appealing, often worsen outcomes for individuals in marginalized groups, and can even leave all groups worse off. The inherent trade-off we identify between formal fairness constraints and welfare improvements -- particularly for the marginalized -- highlights the need for a more robust discussion on what it means for an algorithm to be "fair". We illustrate these ideas with examples from healthcare and the criminal-legal system, and make several proposals to help practitioners design more equitable algorithms.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2021

Learning to be Fair: A Consequentialist Approach to Equitable Decision-Making

In an attempt to make algorithms fair, the machine learning literature has largely focused on equalizing decisions, outcomes, or error rates across race or gender groups. To illustrate, consider a hypothetical government rideshare program that provides transportation assistance to low-income people with upcoming court dates. Following this literature, one might allocate rides to those with the highest estimated treatment effect per dollar, while constraining spending to be equal across race groups. That approach, however, ignores the downstream consequences of such constraints, and, as a result, can induce unexpected harms. For instance, if one demographic group lives farther from court, enforcing equal spending would necessarily mean fewer total rides provided, and potentially more people penalized for missing court. Here we present an alternative framework for designing equitable algorithms that foregrounds the consequences of decisions. In our approach, one first elicits stakeholder preferences over the space of possible decisions and the resulting outcomes--such as preferences for balancing spending parity against court appearance rates. We then optimize over the space of decision policies, making trade-offs in a way that maximizes the elicited utility. To do so, we develop an algorithm for efficiently learning these optimal policies from data for a large family of expressive utility functions. In particular, we use a contextual bandit algorithm to explore the space of policies while solving a convex optimization problem at each step to estimate the best policy based on the available information. This consequentialist paradigm facilitates a more holistic approach to equitable decision-making.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2019

Generative Grading: Near Human-level Accuracy for Automated Feedback on Richly Structured Problems

Access to high-quality education at scale is limited by the difficulty of providing student feedback on open-ended assignments in structured domains like computer programming, graphics, and short response questions. This problem has proven to be exceptionally difficult: for humans, it requires large amounts of manual work, and for computers, until recently, achieving anything near human-level accuracy has been unattainable. In this paper, we present generative grading: a novel computational approach for providing feedback at scale that is capable of accurately grading student work and providing nuanced, interpretable feedback. Our approach uses generative descriptions of student cognition, written as probabilistic programs, to synthesise millions of labelled example solutions to a problem; we then learn to infer feedback for real student solutions based on this cognitive model. We apply our methods to three settings. In block-based coding, we achieve a 50% improvement upon the previous best results for feedback, achieving super-human accuracy. In two other widely different domains -- graphical tasks and short text answers -- we achieve major improvement over the previous state of the art by about 4x and 1.5x respectively, approaching human accuracy. In a real classroom, we ran an experiment where we used our system to augment human graders, yielding doubled grading accuracy while halving grading time.

cs.LG↗