Learning Optimal Individualized Decision Rules with Conditional Demographic Parity
Authors: Wenhai Cui, Wen Su, Donglin Zeng, Xingqiu Zhao
Organizations: Department of Applied Mathematics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University · Department of Biostatistics, City University of Hong Kong · Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan
Individualized decision rules (IDRs) have become increasingly prevalent in societal applications such as personalized marketing, healthcare, and public policy design. However, a critical ethical concern arises from the potential discriminatory effects of IDRs trained on biased data. These algorithms may disproportionately harm individuals from minority subgroups defined by sensitive attributes like gender, race, or language. To address this issue, we propose a novel framework that incorporates demographic parity (DP) and conditional demographic parity (CDP) constraints into the estimation of optimal IDRs. We show that the theoretically optimal IDRs under DP and CDP constraints can be obtained by applying perturbations to the unconstrained optimal IDRs, enabling a computationally efficient solution. Theoretically, we derive convergence rates for both policy value and the fairness constraint term. The effectiveness of our methods is illustrated through comprehensive simulation studies and an empirical application to the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Biased causal diagram.
Method
n=500
n=1000
n=2000
UF
Fair CATE
0.046 (0.034)
0.037 (0.028)
0.035 (0.024)
AF-IDR
0.030 (0.026)
0.028 (0.022)
0.027 (0.020)
DP-IDR
0.046 (0.037)
0.039 (0.029)
0.034 (0.027)
PV
Fair CATE
1.432 (0.065)
1.431 (0.064)
1.430 (0.058)
AF-IDR
1.516 (0.266)
1.615 (0.164)
1.625 (0.160)
DP-IDR
1.875 (0.079)
1.887 (0.074)
1.911 (0.069)
Table 1: Sample means and sample standard deviations (in parentheses) of the unfairness levels (UF) and policy values (PV) for the proposed DP-IDR, Fair CATE and AF-IDR methods, based on 200 replications under Case 1.
Method
n=500
n=1000
n=2000
UF
Fair CATE
0.129 (0.091)
0.124 (0.068)
0.121 (0.054)
AF-IDR
0.046 (0.032)
0.045 (0.031)
0.040 (0.030)
DP-IDR
0.052 (0.033)
0.036 (0.029)
0.033 (0.027)
PV
Fair CATE
0.616 (0.115)
0.639 (0.107)
0.652 (0.100)
AF-IDR
0.479 (0.180)
0.528 (0.128)
0.558 (0.119)
DP-IDR
0.646 (0.121)
0.705 (0.103)
0.742 (0.099)
Table 2: Sample means and sample standard deviations (in parentheses) of the unfairness levels (UF) and policy value (PV) for the proposed DP-IDR, Fair CATE and AF-IDR methods, based on 200 replications under Case 2.
Case 1
Case 2
ϵ
UF
PV
UF
PV
0.02
0.038 (0.030)
1.919 (0.082)
0.041 (0.030)
0.754 (0.099)
0.04
0.049 (0.035)
1.925 (0.082)
0.051 (0.036)
0.764 (0.099)
0.08
0.081 (0.041)
1.937 (0.081)
0.082 (0.043)
0.786 (0.100)
0.10
0.100 (0.041)
1.941 (0.080)
0.104 (0.042)
0.795 (0.099)
0.15
0.147 (0.041)
1.946 (0.079)
0.149 (0.041)
0.818 (0.099)
Table 3: Sample means and sample standard deviations (in parentheses) of the unfairness levels (UF) and policy value (PV) for the proposed ϵ -DP-IDR method based on 200 replications when n=2000 under Cases 1 and 2.
n=500
n=1000
n=2000
Case 3
CUF
0.054 (0.032)
0.043 (0.025)
0.042 (0.022)
PV
0.022 (0.060)
0.124 (0.054)
0.199 (0.045)
Case 4
CUF
0.074 (0.051)
0.068 (0.045)
0.049 (0.026)
PV
1.668 (0.129)
1.789 (0.121)
1.934 (0.096)
Table 4: Sample means and sample standard deviations (in parentheses) of the conditional unfairness levels (CUF) and policy value (PV) for the proposed CDP-IDR method based on 200 replications under Cases 3 and 4.
Case 3
Case 4
ϵ
CUF
PV
CUF
PV
0.05
0.047 (0.022)
0.228 (0.045)
0.063 (0.026)
1.979 (0.094)
0.10
0.083 (0.026)
0.253 (0.043)
0.102 (0.032)
2.015 (0.093)
0.15
0.128 (0.029)
0.271 (0.046)
0.150 (0.031)
2.045 (0.091)
0.20
0.163 (0.030)
0.285 (0.045)
0.200 (0.031)
2.067 (0.089)
0.25
0.191 (0.031)
0.295 (0.045)
0.246 (0.031)
2.083 (0.087)
Table 5: Sample means and sample standard deviations (in parentheses) of the conditional unfairness levels (CUF) and policy value (PV) for the proposed ϵ -CDP-IDR method based on 200 replications when n=2000 under Cases 3 and 4.
ϵ
UF
PV
Fair CATE
–
0.047 (0.041)
707.934 (74.358)
AF-IDR
–
0.020 (0.033)
961.090 (38.755)
ϵ -DP-IDR
0
0.017 (0.025)
972.877 (43.622)
0.05
0.068 (0.065)
976.658 (44.637)
0.10
0.114 (0.072)
977.907 (45.760)
0.15
0.162 (0.069)
980.630 (44.854)
Table 6: Sample means and sample standard deviations (in parentheses) of the unfairness levels (UF) and the policy value (PV) for the proposed ϵ -DP-IDR and Fair CATE approaches, based on 5-fold cross-validation in the OHIE dataset.
ϵ
CUF
PV
ϵ -CDP-IDR
0
0.066 (0.086)
987.641 (57.555)
0.05
0.074 (0.084)
988.958 (59.573)
0.10
0.117 (0.105)
990.738 (60.975)
0.15
0.148 (0.138)
991.778 (61.837)
0.20
0.218 (0.207)
991.930 (61.757)
0.25
0.274 (0.246)
992.802 (62.186)
Table 7: Sample means and sample standard deviations (in parentheses) of the conditional unfairness levels (CUF) and the policy value (PV) for the proposed ϵ -CDP-IDR method, based on 5-fold cross-validation in the OHIE dataset.
Algorithmic fairness studies how automated decisions distribute errors, opportunities, and harms across groups, and how to measure and reduce disparities.