Evaluating Causal Discovery Algorithms for Path-Specific Fairness and Utility in Healthcare
Abstract
Causal discovery in health data faces evaluation challenges when ground truth is unknown. We address this by collaborating with experts to construct proxy ground-truth graphs, establishing benchmarks for synthetic Alzheimer's disease and heart failure clinical records data. We evaluate the Peter-Clark, Greedy Equivalence Search, and Fast Causal Inference algorithms on structural recovery and path-specific fairness decomposition, going beyond composite fairness scores. On synthetic data, Peter-Clark achieved the best structural recovery. On heart failure data, Fast Causal Inference achieved the highest utility. For path-specific effects, ejection fraction contributed 3.37 percentage points to the indirect effect in the ground truth. These differences drove variations in the fairness-utility ratio across algorithms. Our results highlight the need for graph-aware fairness evaluation and fine-grained path-specific analysis when deploying causal discovery in clinical applications.
Keywords
Cite
@article{arxiv.2603.15926,
title = {Evaluating Causal Discovery Algorithms for Path-Specific Fairness and Utility in Healthcare},
author = {Nitish Nagesh and Elahe Khatibi and Thomas Hughes and Mahdi Bagheri and Pratik Gajane and Amir M. Rahmani},
journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.15926},
year = {2026}
}