Automated systems built on artificial intelligence (AI) are increasingly deployed across high-stakes domains, raising critical concerns about fairness and the perpetuation of demographic disparities that exist in the world. In this context, causal inference provides a principled framework for reasoning about fairness, as it links observed disparities to underlying mechanisms and aligns naturally with human intuition and legal notions of discrimination. Prior work on causal fairness primarily focuses on the standard machine learning setting, where a decision-maker constructs a single predictive mechanism $f_{\widehat Y}$ for an outcome variable $Y$, while inheriting the causal mechanisms of all other covariates from the real world. The generative AI setting, however, is markedly more complex: generative models can sample from arbitrary conditionals over any set of variables, implicitly constructing their own beliefs about all causal mechanisms rather than learning a single predictive function. This fundamental difference requires new developments in causal fairness methodology. We formalize the problem of causal fairness in generative AI and unify it with the standard ML setting under a common theoretical framework. We then derive new causal decomposition results that enable granular quantification of fairness impacts along both (a) different causal pathways and (b) the replacement of real-world mechanisms by the generative model's mechanisms. We establish identification conditions and introduce efficient estimators for causal quantities of interest, and demonstrate the value of our methodology by analyzing race and gender bias in large language models across different datasets.

In the data-driven era, large-scale datasets are routinely collected and analyzed using machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) to inform decisions in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, employment, and criminal justice, raising concerns about the fairness behavior of these systems. Existing works in fair ML cover tasks such as bias detection, fair prediction, and fair decision-making, but largely focus on static settings. At the same time, fairness in temporal contexts, particularly survival/time-to-event (TTE) analysis, remains relatively underexplored, with current approaches to fair survival analysis adopting statistical fairness definitions, which, even with unlimited data, cannot disentangle the causal mechanisms that generate disparities. To address this gap, we develop a causal framework for fairness in TTE analysis, enabling the decomposition of disparities in survival into contributions from direct, indirect, and spurious pathways. This provides a human-understandable explanation of why disparities arise and how they evolve over time. Our non-parametric approach proceeds in four steps: (1) formalizing the necessary assumptions about censoring and lack of confounding using a graphical model; (2) recovering the conditional survival function given covariates; (3) applying the Causal Reduction Theorem to reframe the problem in a form amenable to causal pathway decomposition; (4) estimating the effects efficiently. Finally, our approach is used to analyze the temporal evolution of racial disparities in outcome after admission to an intensive care unit (ICU).

Often, however, the causal relationship may be entirely absent or account only for a part of the initially observed correlation.

Synthetic data generation creates data based on real-world data using generative models. In health applications, generating high-quality data while maintaining fairness for sensitive attributes is essential for equitable outcomes. Existing GAN-based and LLM-based methods focus on counterfactual fairness and are primarily applied in finance and legal domains. Causal fairness provides a more comprehensive evaluation framework by preserving causal structure, but current synthetic data generation methods do not address it in health settings. To fill this gap, we develop the first LLM-augmented synthetic data generation method to enhance causal fairness using real-world tabular health data. Our generated data deviates by less than 10% from real data on causal fairness metrics. When trained on causally fair predictors, synthetic data reduces bias on the sensitive attribute by 70% compared to real data. This work improves access to fair synthetic data, supporting equitable health research and healthcare delivery.

Relationships of cause and effect are of prime importance for explaining scientific phenomena. Often, rather than just understanding the effects of causes, researchers also wish to understand how a cause $X$ affects an outcome $Y$ mechanistically -- i.e., what are the causal pathways that are activated between $X$ and $Y$. For analyzing such questions, a range of methods has been developed over decades under the rubric of causal mediation analysis. Traditional mediation analysis focuses on decomposing the average treatment effect (ATE) into direct and indirect effects, and therefore focuses on the ATE as the central quantity. This corresponds to providing explanations for associations in the interventional regime, such as when the treatment $X$ is randomized. Commonly, however, it is of interest to explain associations in the observational regime, and not just in the interventional regime. In this paper, we introduce \text{variation analysis}, an extension of mediation analysis that focuses on the total variation (TV) measure between $X$ and $Y$, written as $\mathrm{E}[Y \mid X=x_1] - \mathrm{E}[Y \mid X=x_0]$. The TV measure encompasses both causal and confounded effects, as opposed to the ATE which only encompasses causal (direct and mediated) variations. In this way, the TV measure is suitable for providing explanations in the natural regime and answering questions such as ``why is $X$ associated with $Y$?''. Our focus is on decomposing the TV measure, in a way that explicitly includes direct, indirect, and confounded variations. Furthermore, we also decompose the TV measure to include interaction terms between these different pathways. Subsequently, interaction testing is introduced, involving hypothesis tests to determine if interaction terms are significantly different from zero. If interactions are not significant, more parsimonious decompositions of the TV measure can be used.

Investigating fairness and equity of automated systems has become a critical field of inquiry. Most of the literature in fair machine learning focuses on defining and achieving fairness criteria in the context of prediction, while not explicitly focusing on how these predictions may be used later on in the pipeline. For instance, if commonly used criteria, such as independence or sufficiency, are satisfied for a prediction score $S$ used for binary classification, they need not be satisfied after an application of a simple thresholding operation on $S$ (as commonly used in practice). In this paper, we take an important step to address this issue in numerous statistical and causal notions of fairness. We introduce the notion of a margin complement, which measures how much a prediction score $S$ changes due to a thresholding operation. We then demonstrate that the marginal difference in the optimal 0/1 predictor $\widehat Y$ between groups, written $P(\hat y \mid x_1) - P(\hat y \mid x_0)$, can be causally decomposed into the influences of $X$ on the $L_2$-optimal prediction score $S$ and the influences of $X$ on the margin complement $M$, along different causal pathways (direct, indirect, spurious). We then show that under suitable causal assumptions, the influences of $X$ on the prediction score $S$ are equal to the influences of $X$ on the true outcome $Y$. This yields a new decomposition of the disparity in the predictor $\widehat Y$ that allows us to disentangle causal differences inherited from the true outcome $Y$ that exists in the real world vs. those coming from the optimization procedure itself. This observation highlights the need for more regulatory oversight due to the potential for bias amplification, and to address this issue we introduce new notions of weak and strong business necessity, together with an algorithm for assessing whether these notions are satisfied.

Systems based on machine learning may exhibit discriminatory behavior based on sensitive characteristics such as gender, sex, religion, or race. In light of this, various notions of fairness and methods to quantify discrimination were proposed, leading to the development of numerous approaches for constructing fair predictors. At the same time, imposing fairness constraints may decrease the utility of the decision-maker, highlighting a tension between fairness and utility. This tension is also recognized in legal frameworks, for instance in the disparate impact doctrine of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- in which specific attention is given to considerations of business necessity -- possibly allowing the usage of proxy variables associated with the sensitive attribute in case a high-enough utility cannot be achieved without them. In this work, we analyze the tension between fairness and accuracy from a causal lens for the first time. We introduce the notion of a path-specific excess loss (PSEL) that captures how much the predictor's loss increases when a causal fairness constraint is enforced. We then show that the total excess loss (TEL), defined as the difference between the loss of predictor fair along all causal pathways vs. an unconstrained predictor, can be decomposed into a sum of more local PSELs. At the same time, enforcing a causal constraint often reduces the disparity between demographic groups. Thus, we introduce a quantity that summarizes the fairness-utility trade-off, called the causal fairness/utility ratio, defined as the ratio of the reduction in discrimination vs. the excess loss from constraining a causal pathway. This quantity is suitable for comparing the fairness-utility trade-off across causal pathways. Finally, as our approach requires causally-constrained fair predictors, we introduce a new neural approach for causally-constrained fair learning.

Since the rise of fair machine learning as a critical field of inquiry, many different notions on how to quantify and measure discrimination have been proposed in the literature. Some of these notions, however, were shown to be mutually incompatible. Such findings make it appear that numerous different kinds of fairness exist, thereby making a consensus on the appropriate measure of fairness harder to reach, hindering the applications of these tools in practice. In this paper, we investigate one of these key impossibility results that relates the notions of statistical and predictive parity. Specifically, we derive a new causal decomposition formula for the fairness measures associated with predictive parity, and obtain a novel insight into how this criterion is related to statistical parity through the legal doctrines of disparate treatment, disparate impact, and the notion of business necessity. Our results show that through a more careful causal analysis, the notions of statistical and predictive parity are not really mutually exclusive, but complementary and spanning a spectrum of fairness notions through the concept of business necessity. Finally, we demonstrate the importance of our findings on a real-world example.

One of the fundamental challenges found throughout the data sciences is to explain why things happen in specific ways, or through which mechanisms a certain variable $X$ exerts influences over another variable $Y$. In statistics and machine learning, significant efforts have been put into developing machinery to estimate correlations across variables efficiently. In causal inference, a large body of literature is concerned with the decomposition of causal effects under the rubric of mediation analysis. However, many variations are spurious in nature, including different phenomena throughout the applied sciences. Despite the statistical power to estimate correlations and the identification power to decompose causal effects, there is still little understanding of the properties of spurious associations and how they can be decomposed in terms of the underlying causal mechanisms. In this manuscript, we develop formal tools for decomposing spurious variations in both Markovian and Semi-Markovian models. We prove the first results that allow a non-parametric decomposition of spurious effects and provide sufficient conditions for the identification of such decompositions. The described approach has several applications, ranging from explainable and fair AI to questions in epidemiology and medicine, and we empirically demonstrate its use on a real-world dataset.