Optimal and Fair Encouragement Policy Evaluation and Learning
Angela Zhou
Abstract
In consequential domains, it is often impossible to compel individuals to take treatment, so that optimal policy rules are merely suggestions in the presence of human non-adherence to treatment recommendations. Under heterogeneity, covariates may predict take-up of treatment and final outcome, but differently. While optimal treatment rules optimize causal outcomes across the population, access parity constraints or other fairness considerations on who receives treatment can be important. For example, in social services, a persistent puzzle is the gap in take-up of beneficial services among those who may benefit from them the most. We study causal identification and robust estimation of optimal treatment rules, including under potential violations of positivity. We consider fairness constraints such as demographic parity in treatment take-up, and other constraints, via constrained optimization. Our framework can be extended to handle algorithmic recommendations under an often-reasonable covariate-conditional exclusion restriction, using our robustness checks for lack of positivity in the recommendation. We develop a two-stage algorithm for solving over parametrized policy classes under general constraints to obtain variance-sensitive regret bounds. We illustrate the methods in three case studies based on data from reminders of SNAP benefits recertification, randomized encouragement to enroll in insurance, and from pretrial supervised release with electronic monitoring. While the specific remedy to inequities in algorithmic allocation is context-specific, it requires studying both take-up of decisions and downstream outcomes of them.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 7a217ad9-8543-461f-a0e5-cf9844d6107eCited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on4
- A Case for Humans-in-the-Loop: Decisions in the Presence of Erroneous Algorithmic ScoresMaria De-Arteaga, Riccardo Fogliato, Alexandra ChouldechovaCHI 2020 · 176 citations
- Algorithmic Risk Assessments Can Alter Human Decision-Making Processes in High-Stakes Government ContextsBen Green, Yiling ChenCSCW 2021 · 63 citations
- B-Learner: Quasi-Oracle Bounds on Heterogeneous Causal Effects Under Hidden ConfoundingMiruna Oprescu, Jacob Dorn, Marah Ghoummaid, Andrew Jesson et al.ICML 2023 · 39 citations
- Individual Treatment Prescription Effect Estimation in a Low Compliance SettingThibaud Rahier, Amélie Héliou, Matthieu Martin, Christophe Renaudin et al.KDD 2021
Related papers
- Robust Allocations with Diversity ConstraintsZeyu Shen, Lodewijk Gelauff, Ashish Goel, Aleksandra Korolova et al.NeurIPS 2021 · 3 citations
- Fair regression via plug-in estimator and recalibration with statistical guaranteesEvgenii Chzhen, Christophe Denis, Mohamed Hebiri, Luca Oneto et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 52 citations
- What's the Harm? Sharp Bounds on the Fraction Negatively Affected by TreatmentNathan KallusNeurIPS 2022 · 40 citations
- Fair and Robust Estimation of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects for Policy LearningKwangho Kim, José R. ZubizarretaICML 2023 · 12 citations
- Fair Participation via Sequential PoliciesReilly Raab, Ross Boczar, Maryam Fazel, Yang LiuAAAI 2024 · 1 citation
