Current subgroup identification methods typically follow a two-step approach: first estimate conditional average treatment effects and then apply thresholding or rule-based procedures to define subgroups. While intuitive, this decoupled approach fails to incorporate key constraints essential for real-world clinical decision-making, such as subgroup size and propensity overlap. These constraints operate on fundamentally different axes than CATE estimation and are not naturally accommodated within existing frameworks, thereby limiting the practical applicability of these methods. We propose a unified optimization framework that directly solves the primal constrained optimization problem to identify optimal subgroups. Our key innovation is a reformulation of the constrained primal problem as an unconstrained differentiable min-max objective, solved via a gradient descent-ascent algorithm. We theoretically establish that our solution converges to a feasible and locally optimal solution. Unlike threshold-based CATE methods that apply constraints as post-hoc filters, our approach enforces them directly during optimization. The framework is model-agnostic, compatible with a wide range of CATE estimators, and extensible to additional constraints like cost limits or fairness criteria. Extensive experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate its effectiveness in identifying high-benefit subgroups while maintaining better satisfaction of constraints.

Minmax optimization, especially in its general nonconvex-nonconcave formulation, has found extensive applications in modern machine learning frameworks such as generative adversarial networks (GAN), adversarial training and multi-agent reinforcement learning. Gradient-based algorithms, in particular gradient descent ascent (GDA), are widely used in practice to solve these problems. Despite the practical popularity of GDA, however, its theoretical behavior has been considered highly undesirable. Indeed, apart from possiblity of non-convergence, recent results (Daskalakis and Panageas, 2018; Mazumdar and Ratliff, 2018; Adolphs et al., 2018) show that even when GDA converges, its stable limit points can be points that are not local Nash equilibria, thus not game-theoretically meaningful. In this paper, we initiate a discussion on the proper optimality measures for minmax optimization, and introduce a new notion of local optimality---local minmax---as a more suitable alternative to the notion of local Nash equilibrium. We establish favorable properties of local minmax points, and show, most importantly, that as the ratio of the ascent step size to the descent step size goes to infinity, stable limit points of GDA are exactly local minmax points up to degenerate points, demonstrating that all stable limit points of GDA have a game-theoretic meaning for minmax problems.