More Like this

1. Algorithmic Decision-Making under Agents with Persistent Improvement

   Xie, Tian; Tan, Xuwei; Zhang, Xueru (August 2024, 7th AAAI Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society)

   This paper studies algorithmic decision-making under human's strategic behavior, where a decision maker uses an algorithm to make decisions about human agents, and the latter with information about the algorithm may exert effort strategically and improve to receive favorable decisions. Unlike prior works that assume agents benefit from their efforts immediately, we consider realistic scenarios where the impacts of these efforts are persistent and agents benefit from efforts by making improvements gradually. We first develop a dynamic model to characterize persistent improvements and based on this construct a Stackelberg game to model the interplay between agents and the decision-maker. We analytically characterize the equilibrium strategies and identify conditions under which agents have incentives to improve. With the dynamics, we then study how the decision-maker can design an optimal policy to incentivize the largest improvements inside the agent population. We also extend the model to settings where 1) agents may be dishonest and game the algorithm into making favorable but erroneous decisions; 2) honest efforts are forgettable and not sufficient to guarantee persistent improvements. With the extended models, we further examine conditions under which agents prefer honest efforts over dishonest behavior and the impacts of forgettable efforts. 

   more » « less
2. Group-Fair Classification with Strategic Agents

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3593013.3594006  

   Estornell, Andrew; Das, Sanmay; Liu, Yang; Vorobeychik, Yevgeniy (January 2023, ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency)

   The use of algorithmic decision making systems in domains which impact the financial, social, and political well-being of people has created a demand for these to be “fair” under some accepted notion of equity. This demand has in turn inspired a large body of work focused on the development of fair learning algorithms which are then used in lieu of their conventional counterparts. Most analysis of such fair algorithms proceeds from the assumption that the people affected by the algorithmic decisions are represented as immutable feature vectors. However, strategic agents may possess both the ability and the incentive to manipulate this observed feature vector in order to attain a more favorable outcome. We explore the impact that strategic agent behavior can have on group-fair classification. We find that in many settings strategic behavior can lead to fairness reversal, with a conventional classifier exhibiting higher fairness than a classifier trained to satisfy group fairness. Further, we show that fairness reversal occurs as a result of a group- fair classifier becoming more selective, achieving fairness largely by excluding individuals from the advantaged group. In contrast, if group fairness is achieved by the classifier becoming more inclusive, fairness reversal does not occur. 

   more » « less
3. Lookahead Counterfactual Fairness

   Zuo, Zhiqun; Xie, Tian; Tan, Xuwei; Zhang, Xueru; Khalili, Mohammad Mahdi (December 2024, Transactions on Machine Learning Research)

   As machine learning (ML) algorithms are used in applications that involve humans, concerns have arisen that these algorithms may be biased against certain social groups. Counterfactual fairness (CF) is a fairness notion proposed in Kusner et al. (2017) that measures the unfairness of ML predictions; it requires that the prediction perceived by an individual in the real world has the same marginal distribution as it would be in a counterfactual world, in which the individual belongs to a different group. Although CF ensures fair ML predictions, it fails to consider the downstream effects of ML predictions on individuals. Since humans are strategic and often adapt their behaviors in response to the ML system, predictions that satisfy CF may not lead to a fair future outcome for the individuals. In this paper, we introduce lookahead counterfactual fairness (LCF), a fairness notion accounting for the downstream effects of ML models which requires the individual future status to be counterfactually fair. We theoretically identify conditions under which LCF can be satisfied and propose an algorithm based on the theorems. We also extend the concept to path-dependent fairness. Experiments on both synthetic and real data validate the proposed method 

   more » « less
4. Finite-Time Convergence Rates in Stochastic Stackelberg Games with Smooth Algorithmic Agents

   Frankel, E; Kulkarni, K; Drusvyatskiy, D; Oh, S; Ratliff, L (October 2025, Forty-second International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2025))

   Decision-makers often adaptively influence downstream competitive agents' behavior to minimize their cost, yet in doing so face critical challenges: decision-makers might not *a priori* know the agents' objectives; agents might *learn* their responses, introducing stochasticity and non-stationarity into the decision-making process; and there may be additional non-strategic environmental stochasticity. Characterizing convergence of this complex system is contingent on how the decision-maker controls for the tradeoff between the induced drift and additional noise from the learning agent behavior and environmental stochasticity. To understand how the learning agents' behavior is influenced by the decision-maker’s actions, we first consider a decision-maker that deploys an arbitrary sequence of actions which induces a sequence of games and corresponding equilibria. We characterize how the drift and noise in the agents' stochastic algorithms decouples from their optimization error. Leveraging this decoupling and accompanying finite-time efficiency estimates, we design decision-maker algorithms that control the induced drift relative to the agent noise. This enables efficient finite-time tracking of game theoretic equilibrium concepts that adhere to the incentives of the players' collective learning processes. 

   more » « less
5. Learning From Strategic Agents: Accuracy, Improvement, and Causality, ICML

   Shavit, Yonadav; Edelman, Benjamin; Axelrod, Brian (July 2020, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research)

   In many predictive decision-making scenarios, such as credit scoring and academic testing, a decision-maker must construct a model that accounts for agents' incentives to ``game'' their features in order to receive better decisions. Whereas the strategic classification literature generally assumes that agents' outcomes are not causally dependent on their features (and thus strategic behavior is a form of lying), we join concurrent work in modeling agents' outcomes as a function of their changeable attributes. Our formulation is the first to incorporate a crucial phenomenon: when agents act to change observable features, they may as a side effect perturb unobserved features that causally affect their true outcomes. We consider three distinct desiderata for a decision-maker's model: accurately predicting agents' post-gaming outcomes (accuracy), incentivizing agents to improve these outcomes (improvement), and, in the linear setting, estimating the visible coefficients of the true causal model (causal precision). As our main contribution, we provide the first algorithms for learning accuracy-optimizing, improvement-optimizing, and causal-precision-optimizing linear regression models directly from data, without prior knowledge of agents' possible actions. These algorithms circumvent the hardness result of Miller et al. (2019) by allowing the decision maker to observe agents' responses to a sequence of decision rules, in effect inducing agents to perform causal interventions for free. 

   more » « less