Decision-makers frequently must choose a single action from a finite set of alternatives -- for example, physicians selecting a treatment, investors choosing a portfolio risk level, or judges determining sentences. To improve outcomes, policymakers often issue policy rules or guidelines to inform such choices. In this paper, I show how to generally derive policy rules from observational data in a multi-action framework under relatively weak assumptions about the underlying structure of the heterogeneous sampled population. Conditional average treatment effects (CATEs) are consistently estimated via a weighted K-means algorithm, assuming the outcome model is correctly specified within each homogeneous subgroup. Feasible policy rules are then implemented via a standard decision tree, allowing for both perfect and imperfect adherence to treatment. The methodology is applied to treatment options for Hepatitis C (HCV) among patients co-infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), a setting in which no uniform guideline exists for modern pharmaceutical therapies. The results identify a subgroup of patients with approximately an 80% probability of spontaneous HCV clearance without treatment. Estimation results also show that reallocating treatments among treated individuals could have reduced total treatment costs by CAN$3.6-4.9 million while still increasing aggregate health benefits relative to the status quo. These findings demonstrate that the proposed approach can generate improved, data-driven treatment guidelines for the management of HIV/HCV co-infected patients.

In clustering problems, a central decision-maker is given a complete metric graph over vertices and must provide a clustering of vertices that minimizes some objective function. In fair clustering problems, vertices are endowed with a color (e.g., membership in a group), and the requirements of a valid clustering might also include the representation of colors in the solution. Prior work in fair clustering assumes complete knowledge of group membership. In this paper, we generalize this by assuming imperfect knowledge of group membership through probabilistic assignments, and present algorithms in this more general setting with approximation ratio guarantees. We also address the problem of metric membership, where group membership has a notion of order and distance. Experiments are conducted using our proposed algorithms as well as baselines to validate our approach, and also surface nuanced concerns when group membership is not known deterministically.

Machine learning models often preserve biases present in training data, leading to unfair treatment of certain minority groups. Despite an array of existing firm-side bias mitigation techniques, they typically incur utility costs and require organizational buy-in. Recognizing that many models rely on user-contributed data, end-users can induce fairness through the framework of Algorithmic Collective Action, where a coordinated minority group strategically relabels its own data to enhance fairness, without altering the firm's training process. We propose three practical, model-agnostic methods to approximate ideal relabeling and validate them on real-world datasets. Our findings show that a subgroup of the minority can substantially reduce unfairness with a small impact on the overall prediction error.

We present a model-agnostic algorithm to learn participatory systems for personalization with categorical group attributes.

For instance, GDPR imposes heightened prerequisites to collect and use protected features.

In human networks, nodes belonging to a marginalized group often have a disproportionate rate of unknown or missing features.

We also address the problem of "metric membership", where group membership has a notion of order and distance.