Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Strategic Classification

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1506.06980 v2 pith:WHZ3OAG6 submitted 2015-06-23 cs.LG

classification cs.LG
keywords classificationclassifierlearningcontestantcostalgorithmsjurymachine
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Machine learning relies on the assumption that unseen test instances of a classification problem follow the same distribution as observed training data. However, this principle can break down when machine learning is used to make important decisions about the welfare (employment, education, health) of strategic individuals. Knowing information about the classifier, such individuals may manipulate their attributes in order to obtain a better classification outcome. As a result of this behavior---often referred to as gaming---the performance of the classifier may deteriorate sharply. Indeed, gaming is a well-known obstacle for using machine learning methods in practice; in financial policy-making, the problem is widely known as Goodhart's law. In this paper, we formalize the problem, and pursue algorithms for learning classifiers that are robust to gaming. We model classification as a sequential game between a player named "Jury" and a player named "Contestant." Jury designs a classifier, and Contestant receives an input to the classifier, which he may change at some cost. Jury's goal is to achieve high classification accuracy with respect to Contestant's original input and some underlying target classification function. Contestant's goal is to achieve a favorable classification outcome while taking into account the cost of achieving it. For a natural class of cost functions, we obtain computationally efficient learning algorithms which are near-optimal. Surprisingly, our algorithms are efficient even on concept classes that are computationally hard to learn. For general cost functions, designing an approximately optimal strategy-proof classifier, for inverse-polynomial approximation, is NP-hard.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Desirable Effort Fairness and Optimality Trade-offs in Strategic Learning

    cs.GT 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Constraining a strategic classifier to keep desirable-effort incentives fair between two groups costs the principal an explicit accuracy or welfare loss bounded by the fairness tolerance beta.

  2. When Is Delegated Play Truthful? Within-Range Regret and the Trilemma of Aligned Delegation

    cs.GT 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The gain from misreporting to your own proxy equals the proxy's within-range regret, so honest reporting is optimal exactly when the proxy already plays the best reachable action; guardrails then face a binding–truthf...

Pith tools