Karen Elliott

Karen Elliott, Kovila Coopamootoo, Edward Curran et al.

Financial inclusion depends on providing adjusted services for citizens with disclosed vulnerabilities. At the same time, the financial industry needs to adhere to a strict regulatory framework, which is often in conflict with the desire for inclusive, adaptive, and privacy-preserving services. In this article we study how this tension impacts the deployment of privacy-sensitive technologies aimed at financial inclusion. We conduct a qualitative study with banking experts to understand their perspectives on service development for financial inclusion. We build and demonstrate a prototype solution based on open source decentralized identifiers and verifiable credentials software and report on feedback from the banking experts on this system. The technology is promising thanks to its selective disclosure of vulnerabilities to the full control of the individual. This supports GDPR requirements, but at the same time, there is a clear tension between introducing these technologies and fulfilling other regulatory requirements, particularly with respect to 'Know Your Customer.' We consider the policy implications stemming from these tensions and provide guidelines for the further design of related technologies.

Zinuo You, John Cartlidge, Karen Elliott et al.

Existing black-box portfolio management systems are prevalent in the financial industry due to commercial and safety constraints, though their performance can fluctuate dramatically with changing market regimes. Evaluating these non-transparent systems is computationally expensive, as fixed budgets limit the number of possible observations. Therefore, achieving stable and sample-efficient optimization for these systems has become a critical challenge. This work presents a novel Bayesian optimization framework (TPE-AS) that improves search stability and efficiency for black-box portfolio models under these limited observation budgets. Standard Bayesian optimization, which solely maximizes expected return, can yield erratic search trajectories and misalign the surrogate model with the true objective, thereby wasting the limited evaluation budget. To mitigate these issues, we propose a weighted Lagrangian estimator that leverages an adaptive schedule and importance sampling. This estimator dynamically balances exploration and exploitation by incorporating both the maximization of model performance and the minimization of the variance of model observations. It guides the search from broad, performance-seeking exploration towards stable and desirable regions as the optimization progresses. Extensive experiments and ablation studies, which establish our proposed method as the primary approach and other configurations as baselines, demonstrate its effectiveness across four backtest settings with three distinct black-box portfolio management models.

Tasos Spiliotopoulos, Dave Horsfall, Magdalene Ng et al.

Vulnerable individuals have a limited ability to make reasonable financial decisions and choices and, thus, the level of care that is appropriate to be provided to them by financial institutions may be different from that required for other consumers. Therefore, identifying vulnerability is of central importance for the design and effective provision of financial services and products. However, validating the information that customers share and respecting their privacy are both particularly important in finance and this poses a challenge for identifying and caring for vulnerable populations. This position paper examines the potential of the combination of two emerging technologies, Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) and Verifiable Credentials (VCs), for the identification of vulnerable consumers in finance in an efficient and privacy-preserving manner.

Ehsan Toreini, Mhairi Aitken, Kovila P. L. Coopamootoo et al.

Concerns about the societal impact of AI-based services and systems has encouraged governments and other organisations around the world to propose AI policy frameworks to address fairness, accountability, transparency and related topics. To achieve the objectives of these frameworks, the data and software engineers who build machine-learning systems require knowledge about a variety of relevant supporting tools and techniques. In this paper we provide an overview of technologies that support building trustworthy machine learning systems, i.e., systems whose properties justify that people place trust in them. We argue that four categories of system properties are instrumental in achieving the policy objectives, namely fairness, explainability, auditability and safety & security (FEAS). We discuss how these properties need to be considered across all stages of the machine learning life cycle, from data collection through run-time model inference. As a consequence, we survey in this paper the main technologies with respect to all four of the FEAS properties, for data-centric as well as model-centric stages of the machine learning system life cycle. We conclude with an identification of open research problems, with a particular focus on the connection between trustworthy machine learning technologies and their implications for individuals and society.

Ehsan Toreini, Mhairi Aitken, Kovila Coopamootoo et al.

To build AI-based systems that users and the public can justifiably trust one needs to understand how machine learning technologies impact trust put in these services. To guide technology developments, this paper provides a systematic approach to relate social science concepts of trust with the technologies used in AI-based services and products. We conceive trust as discussed in the ABI (Ability, Benevolence, Integrity) framework and use a recently proposed mapping of ABI on qualities of technologies. We consider four categories of machine learning technologies, namely these for Fairness, Explainability, Auditability and Safety (FEAS) and discuss if and how these possess the required qualities. Trust can be impacted throughout the life cycle of AI-based systems, and we introduce the concept of Chain of Trust to discuss technological needs for trust in different stages of the life cycle. FEAS has obvious relations with known frameworks and therefore we relate FEAS to a variety of international Principled AI policy and technology frameworks that have emerged in recent years.