Towards Fair AI: Mitigating Bias in Credit Decisions—A Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing adoption of artificial intelligence algorithms is redefining decision-making across various industries. In the financial sector, where automated credit granting has undergone profound changes, this transformation raises concerns about biases perpetuated or introduced by AI systems. This study investigates the methods used to identify and mitigate biases in AI models applied to credit granting. We conducted a systematic literature review using the IEEE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct databases, covering the period from 1 January 2013 to 1 October 2024. From the 414 identified articles, 34 were selected for detailed analysis. Most studies are empirical and quantitative, focusing on fairness in outcomes and biases present in datasets. Preprocessing techniques dominated as the approach for bias mitigation, often relying on public academic datasets. Gender and race were the most studied sensitive attributes, with statistical parity being the most commonly used fairness metric. The findings reveal a maturing research landscape that prioritizes fairness in model outcomes and the mitigation of biases embedded in historical data. However, only a quarter of the papers report more than one fairness metric, limiting comparability across approaches. The literature remains largely focused on a narrow set of sensitive attributes, with little attention to intersectionality or alternative sources of bias. Furthermore, no study employed causal inference techniques to identify proxy discrimination. Despite some promising results—where fairness gains exceed 30% with minimal accuracy loss—significant methodological gaps persist, including the lack of standardized metrics, overreliance on legacy data, and insufficient transparency in model pipelines. Future work should prioritize developing advanced bias mitigation methods, exploring sensitive attributes, standardizing fairness metrics, improving model explainability, reducing computational complexity, enhancing synthetic data generation, and addressing the legal and ethical challenges of algorithms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.056 | 0.251 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".