pith. sign in

arxiv: 2011.14198 · v2 · submitted 2020-11-28 · 🧮 math.OC

Fair and Diverse Allocation of Scarce Resources

Hadis Anahideh , Lulu Kang , Nazanin Nezami This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 13:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC
keywords fair allocationresource distributiondemographic fairnessexposure rateCOVID-19 vaccinesoptimizationgeographical diversityscarce resources
0
0 comments X

The pith

Resource allocation for scarce medical supplies should depend only on exposure rates, independent of demographics.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a fairness-aware method for distributing limited resources such as vaccines that maximizes geographical coverage while preventing demographic disparities. It establishes that average resources per capita in a community must remain independent of demographic features and depend solely on the community's exposure rate to the disease. This setup supports a strategy that assigns higher priority to more exposed or vulnerable populations as a balance between spread and equity. The principle extends to allocating other scarce resources and social benefits.

Core claim

To stop pandemic spread effectively, the average medical resources per capita of a community should be independent of demographic features but conditional only on exposure rate; the authors integrate this into an allocation approach that trades off geographical diversity against social group fairness while giving vulnerable populations priority.

What carries the argument

The fairness-aware allocation approach that conditions per capita resources solely on exposure rates while maximizing geographical diversity.

If this is right

  • Allocations will assign higher priority to communities with higher exposure rates regardless of their demographic makeup.
  • The resulting strategy balances geographical coverage against social fairness in a single prevention-centered framework.
  • The same conditional principle applies to distribution of other scarce resources such as hospital beds or testing kits.
  • Vulnerable populations receive priority through exposure conditioning rather than direct demographic adjustments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Real-time exposure tracking systems could replace demographic adjustments in allocation rules.
  • The approach might extend to non-medical scarce goods where exposure-like metrics can be defined independently of group identity.
  • Testing the method on historical allocation data would show whether exposure conditioning reduces measured disparities.

Load-bearing premise

Exposure rates to the disease can be accurately measured or estimated for each community independently of its demographic features.

What would settle it

Data showing that exposure rate estimates cannot be separated from demographic features, so that conditioning allocations on them still produces demographic disparities in outcomes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2011.14198 by Hadis Anahideh, Lulu Kang, Nazanin Nezami.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Map of Race and Ethnicity by Neighborhood in Chicago. in which the denominator is the amount of exposed individuals in zj . Then, E(V |E = 1, gi) = X j∈M E(V |E = 1, zj )P(Z = zj |E = 1, gi) (4a) = X j∈M E(V |E = 1, zj ) P(E = 1, [U1, . . . , Up] = gi , Z = zj ) P(E = 1, [U1, . . . , Up] = gi) (4b) = X j∈M P xj l∈I sl,j × P(E = 1|zj , gl) si,jP(E = 1|gi , zj )/( P i 0 ,j0 si 0 ,j0 ) P k∈M si,kP(E = 1|gi , … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: , the monotonically decreasing red curve corresponds to the fairness constraint and the mono￾tonically increasing blue curve corresponds to the diversity constraint. The dashed horizontal lines corresponds to the thresholds allowed for diversity D(x) and fairness F(x) constraints, respectively. For α < α1 we can see that F(x) exceeds the allowed threshold of f . Based on Proposition 1, we should remove th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Biplot of demographic features using PCA Analysis with Kmeans clustering -Chicago City regions Demographic Groups Exposure rates Female 0.058617 Male 0.060259 Age_18_29 0.052464 Black_non_latinx 0.037505 Age_30_39 0.067502 Other_race 0.097971 Age_40_49 0.078672 White_non_latinx 0.020698 Age_50_59 0.077986 Age_60_69 0.07898 Age_0_17 0.038741 Age_70_79 0.07275 Two or more race 0.088107 Age_80_ 0.078768 Asian… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Resource Allocation (Racial groups): Top 15 populated areas-Chicago 60629 60618 60623 60639 60647 60617 60608 60625 60634 60620 60641 60614 60657 60640 60609 Zipcodes 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 Total Allocations Diverse-only alpha=0.5 Fair-Diverse(tuned alpha) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Resource Allocation (Racial groups): Top 15 populated areas-NYC 11368 11226 11373 11220 11385 10467 11208 11236 11207 10025 11219 11211 11377 11214 11234 Zipcodes 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 Total Allocations Diverse-only alpha=0.5 Fair-Diverse(tuned alpha) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Resource Allocation (Racial groups): top 15 populated areas-Baltimore 21215 21206 21218 21224 21229 21217 21230 21213 21212 21216 21239 21209 21223 21202 21214 Zipcodes 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 Total Allocations Diverse-only alpha=0.5 Fair-Diverse(tuned alpha) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Impact of the f and d on the diversity-fairness trade-off The plots in 11 are based on the racial instance problem. These figures reveal that under any fairness and diversity requirements (given f and d values) the α tuning algorithm returns a feasible solution for Fair-Diverse model. Note that, this is not the case for other models (Fair-only, Diverse￾only and alpha=0.5) as it can be observed from th… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Fairness and Diversity gaps based on different α values 5 Discussion In this section, we discuss the scope and limitation of the proposed fair-diverse resource allocation method, which is introduced in §2. Through the three case studies in §4.1, we can see that the proposed method is applicable to the early stage of medical resource allocation when the resource is still considered to be scarce. As long as… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Exposure Rates-New York Demographic Groups Exposure rates White 0.050315 Black or African American 0.083406 American Indian 0.06383 Asian 0.020939 Hawaiian or pacific Islander 0.030405 Other race 0.213587 Male 0.082152 Female 0.085886 Age_0_9 0.042091 Age_10_19 0.056692 Age_20_29 0.092926 Age_30_39 0.120977 Age_40_49 0.087818 Age_50_59 0.086137 Age_60_69 0.099737 Age_70_79 0.087173 Age_80+ 0.07707 [PITH_… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We aim to design a fairness-aware allocation approach to maximize the geographical diversity and avoid unfairness in the sense of demographic disparity. During the development of this work, the COVID-19 pandemic is still spreading in the U.S. and other parts of the world on large scale. Many poor communities and minority groups are much more vulnerable than the rest. To provide sufficient vaccine and medical resources to all residents and effectively stop the further spreading of the pandemic, the average medical resources per capita of a community should be independent of the community's demographic features but only conditional on the exposure rate to the disease. In this article, we integrate different aspects of resource allocation and seek a synergistic intervention strategy that gives vulnerable populations with higher priority when distributing medical resources. This prevention-centered strategy is a trade-off between geographical coverage and social group fairness. The proposed principle can be applied to other scarce resources and social benefits allocation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a fairness-aware allocation method for scarce resources such as vaccines and medical supplies during the COVID-19 pandemic. It argues that to maximize geographical diversity while avoiding demographic disparity, the average resources per capita in a community must be independent of demographic features and depend only on the community's exposure rate to the disease. The approach integrates multiple aspects of allocation into a synergistic, prevention-centered strategy that prioritizes vulnerable populations as a trade-off between coverage and fairness, with the principle claimed to extend to other scarce resources.

Significance. If the central independence condition can be operationalized with exposure rates estimated without demographic confounding, the work could supply a principled optimization framework for equitable pandemic resource allocation that simultaneously supports public-health goals. The emphasis on conditioning solely on exposure rather than demographics is a potentially useful distinction from standard fairness notions, but the abstract supplies no formal model, algorithm, or validation to assess whether this is achievable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The core claim requires that exposure rate can be measured or estimated independently of demographic features so that allocation decisions conditioned on exposure automatically satisfy demographic independence. No estimation procedure, data source, or robustness argument is supplied to support this independence, leaving the central fairness guarantee ungrounded.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The manuscript states that the proposed strategy is a 'trade-off between geographical coverage and social group fairness' but provides neither an objective function nor constraints that would allow a reader to verify how the two objectives are balanced or optimized.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: No mathematical formulation, algorithm, or empirical validation is presented to show that the stated per-capita independence condition can be realized in an allocation rule while still controlling disease spread.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive report. The comments correctly identify that the current abstract lacks supporting details on estimation, formulation, and validation. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested elements.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The core claim requires that exposure rate can be measured or estimated independently of demographic features so that allocation decisions conditioned on exposure automatically satisfy demographic independence. No estimation procedure, data source, or robustness argument is supplied to support this independence, leaving the central fairness guarantee ungrounded.

    Authors: We agree that no estimation procedure or data source is supplied in the abstract. In the revision we will add a dedicated subsection describing how exposure rates can be estimated from public-health surveillance data (e.g., confirmed case rates adjusted for testing access and mobility patterns) while controlling for demographic confounders, together with a brief robustness argument based on sensitivity analysis. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The manuscript states that the proposed strategy is a 'trade-off between geographical coverage and social group fairness' but provides neither an objective function nor constraints that would allow a reader to verify how the two objectives are balanced or optimized.

    Authors: The referee correctly observes that the abstract contains no explicit objective or constraints. We will revise both the abstract and the main text to state the multi-objective optimization problem, including the coverage term, the fairness (demographic-independence) constraint, and the exposure-rate conditioning, so that the trade-off is mathematically verifiable. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: No mathematical formulation, algorithm, or empirical validation is presented to show that the stated per-capita independence condition can be realized in an allocation rule while still controlling disease spread.

    Authors: We acknowledge the absence of a formal model, algorithm, and validation. The revision will introduce (i) the precise optimization formulation that enforces per-capita independence conditional on exposure, (ii) a practical algorithm (e.g., a linear or mixed-integer program solvable by standard solvers), and (iii) illustrative numerical experiments on synthetic networks that demonstrate both demographic independence and disease-spread control. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: normative principle stated without derivations or self-referential reductions

full rationale

The paper states a normative fairness principle (resources per capita independent of demographics, conditional only on exposure rate) but supplies no equations, fitted parameters, or derivation chain. No self-citations are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems, no ansatzes are smuggled, and no predictions are constructed from inputs by definition. The central claim is an explicit modeling choice, not a result that reduces tautologically to its own assumptions. This is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No details available from the abstract alone to identify free parameters, axioms, or invented entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5679 in / 968 out tokens · 20302 ms · 2026-05-24T13:39:35.467041+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abdi and L

    H. Abdi and L. J. Williams. Principal component analysis. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: computational statistics, 2(4):433–459, 2010

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    D. J. Alcendor. Racial disparities-associated covid-19 mortality among minority populations in the us. Journal of clinical medicine, 9(8):2442, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    S. Atlas. The demographic statistical atlas of the united states. https://statisticalatlas. com/place/Illinois/Chicago/Race-and-Ethnicity, 2018. Accessed: 10-05-2020

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Barocas, M

    S. Barocas, M. Hardt, and A. Narayanan. Fairness and machine learning: Limitations and opportunities. fairmlbook.org, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Barocas and A

    S. Barocas and A. D. Selbst. Big data’s disparate impact. Calif. L. Rev., 104:671, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    S. K. Baruah, N. K. Cohen, C. G. Plaxton, and D. A. Varvel. Proportionate progress: A notion of fairness in resource allocation. Algorithmica, 15(6):600–625, 1996

    work page 1996

  7. [7]

    N. G. Becker and D. N. Starczak. Optimal vaccination strategies for a community of households. Mathematical Biosciences, 139(2):117–132, 1997

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

    Beiki, S

    H. Beiki, S. Mohammad Seyedhosseini, V . V . Ponkratov, A. Olegovna Zekiy, and S. A. Ivanov. Addressing a sustainable supplier selection and order allocation problem by an integrated ap- proach: a case of automobile manufacturing. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 38(4):239–253, 2021

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    Benitez, C

    J. Benitez, C. Courtemanche, and A. Yelowitz. Racial and ethnic disparities in covid-19: evidence from six large cities. Journal of Economics, Race, and Policy, 3(4):243–261, 2020

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    Bertsimas, V

    D. Bertsimas, V . F. Farias, and N. Trichakis. The price of fairness. Operations research, 59(1):17–31, 2011

    work page 2011

  11. [11]

    Bertsimas, V

    D. Bertsimas, V . F. Farias, and N. Trichakis. On the efficiency-fairness trade-off.Management Science, 58(12):2234–2250, 2012

    work page 2012

  12. [12]

    Bertsimas, V

    D. Bertsimas, V . F. Farias, and N. Trichakis. Fairness, efficiency, and flexibility in organ allocation for kidney transplantation. Operations Research, 61(1):73–87, 2013

    work page 2013

  13. [13]

    L. E. Bolton, L. Warlop, and J. W. Alba. Consumer perceptions of price (un) fairness. Journal of consumer research, 29(4):474–491, 2003

    work page 2003

  14. [14]

    J. L. Bower. Managing the resource allocation process: A study of corporate planning and investment. Irwin Homewood, 1972

    work page 1972

  15. [15]

    Chiu and R

    D.-M. Chiu and R. Jain. Analysis of the increase and decrease algorithms for congestion avoidance in computer networks. Computer Networks and ISDN systems, 17(1):1–14, 1989

    work page 1989

  16. [16]

    Corbett-Davies, E

    S. Corbett-Davies, E. Pierson, A. Feller, S. Goel, and A. Huq. Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairness. In Proceedings of the 23rd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 797–806, 2017

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    A. R. Cross. Draft landscape of covid-19 candidate vaccines. https://www. redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/how-to-donate/how-blood-donations-help/ blood-needs-blood-supply.html , 2020. Accessed: 04-15-2020

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    Demers, S

    A. Demers, S. Keshav, and S. Shenker. Analysis and simulation of a fair queueing algorithm. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 19(4):1–12, 1989

    work page 1989

  19. [19]

    A. P. Desai, A. P. Desai, and G. J. Loomis. Relationship between pre-existing allergies and anaphylactic reactions post mrna covid-19 vaccine administration. Vaccine, 2021

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    Donahue and J

    K. Donahue and J. Kleinberg. Fairness and utilization in allocating resources with uncertain demand. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 658–668, 2020

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    Dowding and M

    K. Dowding and M. Van Hees. Freedom of choice., 2009

    work page 2009

  22. [22]

    A. A. Dror, N. Eisenbach, S. Taiber, N. G. Morozov, M. Mizrachi, A. Zigron, S. Srouji, and E. Sela. Vaccine hesitancy: the next challenge in the fight against covid-19. European journal of epidemiology, 35(8):775–779, 2020

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    R. S. Dubey, G. Laguzzi, and F. Ruscitti. On the representation and construction of equitable social welfare orders. Available at SSRN 3524071, 2020. 22

    work page 2020

  24. [24]

    Dwork, M

    C. Dwork, M. Hardt, T. Pitassi, O. Reingold, and R. Zemel. Fairness through awareness. In Proceedings of the 3rd innovations in theoretical computer science conference, pages 214–226, 2012

    work page 2012

  25. [25]

    Elzayn, S

    H. Elzayn, S. Jabbari, C. Jung, M. Kearns, S. Neel, A. Roth, and Z. Schutzman. Fair algo- rithms for learning in allocation problems. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 170–179, 2019

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    E. J. Emanuel, G. Persad, R. Upshur, B. Thome, M. Parker, A. Glickman, C. Zhang, C. Boyle, M. Smith, and J. P. Phillips. Fair allocation of scarce medical resources in the time of covid-19, 2020

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    W.-H. Feng, Z. Lou, N. Kong, and H. Wan. A multiobjective stochastic genetic algorithm for the pareto-optimal prioritization scheme design of real-time healthcare resource allocation. Operations Research for Health Care, 15:32–42, 2017

    work page 2017

  28. [28]

    Fiedrich, F

    F. Fiedrich, F. Gehbauer, and U. Rickers. Optimized resource allocation for emergency response after earthquake disasters. Safety science, 35(1-3):41–57, 2000

    work page 2000

  29. [29]

    R. E. Glover, R. Urquhart, J. Lukawska, and K. G. Blumenthal. Vaccinating against covid-19 in people who report allergies, 2021

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

    A. C. Harberger. Monopoly and resource allocation. In Essential readings in economics, pages 77–90. Springer, 1995

    work page 1995

  31. [31]

    Hardt, E

    M. Hardt, E. Price, and N. Srebro. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 3315–3323, 2016

    work page 2016

  32. [32]

    J. A. Hartigan and M. A. Wong. Algorithm as 136: A k-means clustering algorithm. Journal of the royal statistical society. series c (applied statistics), 28(1):100–108, 1979

    work page 1979

  33. [33]

    T.-Y . Ho, S. Liu, and Z. B. Zabinsky. A branch and bound algorithm for dynamic resource allocation in population disease management. Operations Research Letters, 47(6):579–586, 2019

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    Huaizhou, R

    S. Huaizhou, R. V . Prasad, E. Onur, and I. Niemegeers. Fairness in wireless networks: Issues, measures and challenges. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 16(1):5–24, 2013

    work page 2013

  35. [35]

    J. Jaffe. Bottleneck flow control. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 29(7):954–962, 1981

    work page 1981

  36. [36]

    F. P. Kelly, A. K. Maulloo, and D. K. Tan. Rate control for communication networks: shadow prices, proportional fairness and stability. Journal of the Operational Research society, 49(3):237–252, 1998

    work page 1998

  37. [37]

    L. M. Koonin, S. Pillai, E. B. Kahn, D. Moulia, and A. Patel. Strategies to inform allocation of stockpiled ventilators to healthcare facilities during a pandemic. Health security, 18(2):69–74, 2020

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    T. Lan, D. Kao, M. Chiang, and A. Sabharwal. An axiomatic theory of fairness in network resource allocation. IEEE, 2010

    work page 2010

  39. [39]

    T. T. Le, Z. Andreadakis, A. Kumar, R. G. Roman, S. Tollefsen, M. Saville, and S. Mayhew. The covid-19 vaccine development landscape. Nat Rev Drug Discov, 19(5):305–306, 2020

    work page 2020

  40. [40]

    Lum and W

    K. Lum and W. Isaac. To predict and serve? Significance, 13(5):14–19, 2016

    work page 2016

  41. [41]

    Matrajt, M

    L. Matrajt, M. E. Halloran, and I. M. Longini Jr. Optimal vaccine allocation for the early mitigation of pandemic influenza. PLoS Comput Biol, 9(3):e1002964, 2013

    work page 2013

  42. [42]

    L. S. Muñoz-Price, A. B. Nattinger, F. Rivera, R. Hanson, C. G. Gmehlin, A. Perez, S. Singh, B. W. Buchan, N. A. Ledeboer, and L. E. Pezzin. Racial disparities in incidence and outcomes among patients with covid-19. JAMA network open, 3(9):e2021892–e2021892, 2020

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    Nesbitt and R

    S. Nesbitt and R. E. Palomarez. increasing awareness and education on health disparities for health care providers. Ethnicity & disease, 26(2):181, 2016

    work page 2016

  44. [44]

    of Chicago

    C. of Chicago. City of chicago data portal. https://data.cityofchicago.org/browse? tags=covid-19&sortBy=relevance, 2020. Accessed: 09-15-2020

    work page 2020

  45. [45]

    M. D. of Health(MDH). Coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak data. https://coronavirus. maryland.gov/, 2021. Accessed: 07-07-2021

    work page 2019

  46. [46]

    Ogryczak

    W. Ogryczak. Multicriteria models for fair resource allocation. Control and Cybernetics , 36(2):303–332, 2007. 23

    work page 2007

  47. [47]

    Ogryczak, M

    W. Ogryczak, M. Pioro, and A. Tomaszewski. Telecommunications network design and max- min optimization problem. Journal of telecommunications and information technology, pages 43–56, 2005

    work page 2005

  48. [48]

    P. M. Ong, C. Pech, N. R. Gutierrez, and V . M. Mays. Covid-19 medical vulnerability indicators: A predictive, local data model for equity in public health decision making.International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(9):4829, 2021

    work page 2021

  49. [49]

    C. D. Portal. Covid-19 daily cases, deaths, and hospitalizations, 2020

    work page 2020

  50. [50]

    A. Remmel. Covid vaccines and safety: what the research says, 2021

    work page 2021

  51. [51]

    C. N. Rosyidi, S. N. Hapsari, and W. A. Jauhari. An integrated optimization model of production plan in a large steel manufacturing company. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 38(3):186–196, 2021

    work page 2021

  52. [52]

    A. Sen. Freedom of choice: concept and content. European economic review, 32(2-3):269–294, 1988

    work page 1988

  53. [53]

    B. Singh. Fairness criteria for allocating scarce resources. Optimization Letters, pages 1–9, 2020

    work page 2020

  54. [54]

    M. W. Tanner, L. Sattenspiel, and L. Ntaimo. Finding optimal vaccination strategies under parameter uncertainty using stochastic programming. Mathematical biosciences, 215(2):144– 151, 2008

    work page 2008

  55. [55]

    Tayfur and K

    E. Tayfur and K. Taaffe. A model for allocating resources during hospital evacuations. Comput- ers & Industrial Engineering, 57(4):1313–1323, 2009

    work page 2009

  56. [56]

    Troiano and A

    G. Troiano and A. Nardi. Vaccine hesitancy in the era of covid-19. Public Health, 2021

    work page 2021

  57. [57]

    Verger and E

    P. Verger and E. Dubé. Restoring confidence in vaccines in the covid-19 era, 2020

    work page 2020

  58. [58]

    M. Verweij. Moral principles for allocating scarce medical resources in an influenza pandemic. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 6(2):159–169, 2009

    work page 2009

  59. [59]

    Yao and B

    S. Yao and B. Huang. Beyond parity: Fairness objectives for collaborative filtering. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 2921–2930, 2017

    work page 2017

  60. [60]

    Yarmand, J

    H. Yarmand, J. S. Ivy, B. Denton, and A. L. Lloyd. Optimal two-phase vaccine allocation to geographically different regions under uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research, 233(1):208–219, 2014

    work page 2014

  61. [61]

    J. Y .-C. Yip. Healthcare resource allocation in the covid-19 pandemic: Ethical considerations from the perspective of distributive justice within public health. Public Health in Practice , 2:100111, 2021

    work page 2021

  62. [62]

    Zehlike, F

    M. Zehlike, F. Bonchi, C. Castillo, S. Hajian, M. Megahed, and R. Baeza-Yates. Fa* ir: A fair top-k ranking algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 1569–1578, 2017

    work page 2017

  63. [63]

    Zelner, R

    J. Zelner, R. Trangucci, R. Naraharisetti, A. Cao, R. Malosh, K. Broen, N. Masters, and P. Delamater. Racial disparities in coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) mortality are driven by unequal infection risks. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 72(5):e88–e95, 2021

    work page 2019

  64. [64]

    Žliobait˙e

    I. Žliobait˙e. Measuring discrimination in algorithmic decision making. DATA MIN KNOWL DISC, 31(4):1060–1089, 2017. 24 APPENDIX A Proof of Proposition 1 Proposition 2. Let beX′ ={x|D(x)<ϵ d,F (x)<ϵ f,∑ j∈Mxj =b,xj≥ 0}:

    work page 2017

  65. [65]

    If X′̸=∅: givenx∗∈X′,∃α∗ such thatx∗ is an optimal solution ofP 2

    work page

  66. [66]

    If̸∃ α∗ such thatx∗ is an optimal solution ofP 2 that satisfies both conditionsD(x)<ϵ d andF (x)<ϵ f , thenX′ =∅. Proof. We first argue that the feasibility problem is equivalent to the following optimization model: P′ : minD(x) s.t. F (x) = ϵ D+ j (x)≤D (x), ∀j∈M D− j (x)≥D (x), ∀j∈M F + i (x)≥F (x), ∀i∈I F− i (x)≤F (x), ∀i∈I ∑ j∈M xj =b xj≥ 0, ∀j∈M Consid...

    work page

  67. [67]

    andD(x∗ 1)≤D (x∗ 2). Proof. Letβ = α (1−α). Givenx∗ 1 andx∗ 2 corresponding toβ1 andβ2, whereβ2 <β 1: D(x∗

    work page

  68. [68]

    +β2F (x∗ 1) Adding the above Equations, we will have: β1F (x∗

    work page

  69. [69]

    The monotonicity proof forD(x) is the same withβ = (1−α) α

    +β2F (x∗ 1) =⇒ (β2−β1)(F (x∗ 2)−F (x∗ 1))≤ 0 which impliesF (x∗ 2)≤F (x∗ 1). The monotonicity proof forD(x) is the same withβ = (1−α) α . If α2 <α 1 thenD(x∗ 1)>D(x∗ 2). C Exposure Rates Demographic Groups Exposure rates Female 0.095383 Male 0.09804 Age_0_4 0.035865 Age_5_12 0.057509 Age_13_17 0.061328 Age_18_24 0.081399 Age_25_34 0.106335 Age_35_44 0.107...

    work page