As society transitions towards an AI-based decision-making infrastructure, an ever-increasing number of decisions once under control of humans are now delegated to automated systems. Even though such developments make various parts of society more efficient, a large body of evidence suggests that a great deal of care needs to be taken to make such automated decision-making systems fair and equitable, namely, taking into account sensitive attributes such as gender, race, and religion. In this paper, we study a specific decision-making task called outcome control in which an automated system aims to optimize an outcome variable $Y$ while being fair and equitable. The interest in such a setting ranges from interventions related to criminal justice and welfare, all the way to clinical decision-making and public health. In this paper, we first analyze through causal lenses the notion of benefit, which captures how much a specific individual would benefit from a positive decision, counterfactually speaking, when contrasted with an alternative, negative one. We introduce the notion of benefit fairness, which can be seen as the minimal fairness requirement in decision-making, and develop an algorithm for satisfying it. We then note that the benefit itself may be influenced by the protected attribute, and propose causal tools which can be used to analyze this. Finally, if some of the variations of the protected attribute in the benefit are considered as discriminatory, the notion of benefit fairness may need to be strengthened, which leads us to articulating a notion of causal benefit fairness. Using this notion, we develop a new optimization procedure capable of maximizing $Y$ while ascertaining causal fairness in the decision process.

Fairness in clinical decision-making is a critical element of health equity, but assessing fairness of clinical decisions from observational data is challenging. Recently, many fairness notions have been proposed to quantify fairness in decision-making, among which causality-based fairness notions have gained increasing attention due to its potential in adjusting for confounding and reasoning about bias. However, causal fairness notions remain under-explored in the context of clinical decision-making with large-scale healthcare data. In this work, we propose a Bayesian causal inference approach for assessing a causal fairness notion called principal fairness in clinical settings. We demonstrate our approach using both simulated data and electronic health records (EHR) data.

Using the concept of principal stratification from the causal inference literature, we introduce a new notion of fairness, called principal fairness, for human and algorithmic decision-making. The key idea is that one should not discriminate among individuals who would be similarly affected by the decision. Unlike the existing statistical definitions of fairness, principal fairness explicitly accounts for the fact that individuals can be influenced by the decision. We introduce an axiomatic assumption that all groups are created equal once we account for relevant covariates. This assumption is motivated by a belief that protected attributes such as race and gender should not directly affect potential outcomes. Under this assumption, we show that principal fairness implies all three existing statistical fairness criteria, thereby resolving the previously recognized tradeoffs between them. Finally, we discuss how to empirically evaluate the principal fairness of a particular decision and the relationships between principal and counterfactual fairness criteria.