Causal machine learning methods which flexibly generate heterogeneous treatment effect estimates could be very useful tools for governments trying to make and implement policy. However, as the critical artificial intelligence literature has shown, governments must be very careful of unintended consequences when using machine learning models. One way to try and protect against unintended bad outcomes is with AI Fairness methods which seek to create machine learning models where sensitive variables like race or gender do not influence outcomes. In this paper we argue that standard AI Fairness approaches developed for predictive machine learning are not suitable for all causal machine learning applications because causal machine learning generally (at least so far) uses modelling to inform a human who is the ultimate decision-maker while AI Fairness approaches assume a model that is making decisions directly. We define these scenarios as indirect and direct decision-making respectively and suggest that policy-making is best seen as a joint decision where the causal machine learning model usually only has indirect power. We lay out a definition of fairness for this scenario - a model that provides the information a decision-maker needs to accurately make a value judgement about just policy outcomes - and argue that the complexity of causal machine learning models can make this difficult to achieve. The solution here is not traditional AI Fairness adjustments, but careful modelling and awareness of some of the decision-making biases that these methods might encourage which we describe.

Protected attributes are often presented as categorical features that need to be encoded before feeding them into a machine learning algorithm. Encoding these attributes is paramount as they determine the way the algorithm will learn from the data. Categorical feature encoding has a direct impact on the model performance and fairness. In this work, we compare the accuracy and fairness implications of the two most well-known encoders: one-hot encoding and target encoding. We distinguish between two types of induced bias that can arise while using these encodings and can lead to unfair models. The first type, irreducible bias, is due to direct group category discrimination and a second type, reducible bias, is due to large variance in less statistically represented groups. We take a deeper look into how regularization methods for target encoding can improve the induced bias while encoding categorical features. Furthermore, we tackle the problem of intersectional fairness that arises when mixing two protected categorical features leading to higher cardinality. This practice is a powerful feature engineering technique used for boosting model performance. We study its implications on fairness as it can increase both types of induced bias

Simulations of infectious disease spread have long been used to understand how epidemics evolve and how to effectively treat them. However, comparatively little attention has been paid to understanding the fairness implications of different treatment strategies -- that is, how might such strategies distribute the expected disease burden differentially across various subgroups or communities in the population? In this work, we define the precision disease control problem -- the problem of optimally allocating vaccines in a social network in a step-by-step fashion -- and we use the ML Fairness Gym to simulate epidemic control and study it from both an efficiency and fairness perspective. We then present an exploratory analysis of several different environments and discuss the fairness implications of different treatment strategies.