Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 minor 60 references

Strategic Feature Selection

T0 review · 0 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-26 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Excluding features based solely on manipulability is generally suboptimal when using ridge regularization against strategic manipulation.

desk verdict The paper opens a practical line on strategic classification by showing feature selection plus ridge tuning beats dropping manipulable features alone, but the strength of that claim depends on details not visible in the abstract. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.18867 v1 pith:L4QRWYZX submitted 2026-06-17 cs.LG cs.CYstat.ML

Jivat Neet Kaur , Pratik Patil , Divya Shanmugam , Emma Pierson , Michael I. Jordan , Nika Haghtalab , Meena Jagadeesan , Ahmed Alaa
show 1 more author
Serena Wang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.CYstat.ML
keywords strategicclassificationfeatureselectionridgeregularizationmanipulabilitypolicydesignalgorithmicfairnesshealthcarepayments
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper studies strategic classification where predictors must handle agents who manipulate input features to their advantage. Decision makers often face limits on redesigning the full predictor and instead adjust coarser levers such as which features to drop and how much ridge regularization to apply. The central finding is that dropping features purely by how easily they can be manipulated performs worse than a joint choice of feature subset and regularization level. A detailed characterization of subset performance under the best regularization strength supplies the necessary guidance for this joint choice. An algorithm built on that characterization is tested on a healthcare payments benchmark to show how it can shape practical policy.

What carries the argument

The fine-grained characterization of feature-subset performance under optimal ridge regularization, which serves as the basis for the joint selection algorithm.

What would settle it

A controlled experiment or deployment in which selecting features solely by manipulability achieves equal or better performance than the joint optimization algorithm under the same manipulation model would falsify the suboptimality claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Excluding individual features based on their manipulability alone is generally suboptimal. A fine-grained characterization of the performance of any given feature subset under its optimal ridge regularization strength yields new insights for policy design, and this characterization motivates a practical algorithm that jointly selects the feature set and the regularization level.

Load-bearing premise

The assumed model of strategic manipulation, including its costs and best-response behavior, together with ridge regularization as the available policy lever, correctly describes the actual decision environment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Joint optimization of the feature set and regularization level improves predictor robustness compared with manipulability-based exclusion alone.
  • The performance characterization supplies concrete guidance for choosing which features to retain when only coarse levers are adjustable.
  • The resulting algorithm can be applied directly in domains such as healthcare payments to reduce the impact of strategic behavior.
  • Policy makers gain a principled way to trade off feature retention against regularization strength without redesigning the entire predictor.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same characterization approach could be tested with other regularizers such as lasso to see whether the suboptimality of pure manipulability exclusion persists.
  • In repeated-interaction settings the characterization might be recomputed periodically to adapt the chosen feature set as manipulation costs change.
  • The framework suggests examining whether similar joint-selection benefits appear when the decision maker can adjust thresholds or post-processing steps instead of regularization.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper initiates a formal study of strategic classification via feature selection interacting with ridge regularization. It claims that excluding features based solely on manipulability is generally suboptimal, provides a characterization of the performance of any feature subset under optimally tuned ridge regularization, develops a practical algorithm for jointly selecting the feature set and regularization strength, and illustrates the approach on a healthcare payments benchmark.

Significance. If the characterization and algorithm are correct, the work supplies actionable guidance for organizations that must use coarse policy levers (feature exclusion plus standard regularization) rather than redesigning the entire predictor. It extends the standard linear strategic classification model (quadratic manipulation costs, best-response equilibrium) in a natural direction and names concrete policy insights.

minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract and introduction state the main finding and algorithm existence but the manuscript should include a short self-contained derivation or theorem statement (e.g., in §3 or §4) showing how the performance characterization is obtained from the ridge-regularized objective; this would strengthen readability without altering the central claim.
  2. The healthcare case study is referenced without reporting the specific feature set chosen by the algorithm, the resulting regularization parameter, or quantitative performance metrics relative to the manipulability-only baseline; adding these numbers (or a table) would make the empirical illustration more concrete.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive summary of our work and the recommendation of minor revision. No specific major comments were raised in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper's central derivation provides a mathematical characterization of the performance of feature subsets under optimal ridge regularization, starting from the standard strategic classification setup with linear predictors and quadratic manipulation costs. This characterization is obtained analytically from the model equations rather than by fitting parameters to data or redefining inputs as outputs. The subsequent algorithm is explicitly motivated by the characterization but does not reduce to it by construction. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems imported from prior author work, or ansatzes smuggled via citation are present in the provided text. The result is scoped to the assumed model and remains self-contained without reducing to tautology.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 0 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; the work implicitly relies on standard game-theoretic models of strategic classification (linear predictors, manipulation costs, best-response behavior) and ridge regularization as the tunable parameter, but no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strategic Feature Selection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L4QRWYZX

@misc{pith2026260618867,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strategic Feature Selection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L4QRWYZX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.18867}
}
read the original abstract

When algorithmic predictors inform resource allocation in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, these predictors must account for strategic manipulation of input features. The typical solution is to redesign the predictor itself to explicitly account for strategic interactions. In practice, however, decision makers are often constrained to adjusting coarser levers within existing prediction pipelines. For example, healthcare organizations often select which features to exclude based on perceived manipulability, while using standard regularization procedures to shrink the coefficients of retained features. In this work, we initiate a formal study of strategic classification through feature selection and its interaction with ridge regularization. Our main finding is that excluding individual features based on their manipulability alone is generally suboptimal. We provide a fine-grained characterization of the performance of a feature subset under optimal regularization, yielding new insights for policy design. Motivated by this characterization, we develop a practical algorithm for jointly choosing the feature set and the level of ridge regularization. Through a real-world case study on a healthcare payments benchmark, we illustrate how our algorithm can guide the design of coarse policy levers in practice. Our results provide a principled, practical framework for mitigating the effects of strategic behavior in algorithmic decision-making systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.18867 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The best subset depends on the joint predictability-manipulability structure. In a d = 4 example, feature 1 is highly predictive but also highly manipulable. Feature 2 is strongly correlated with feature 1 and therefore acts as a less manipulable proxy. Features 3, 4 are less manipulable features with moderate predictive value. (Left) Excess strategic MSE decomposition for five representative supports. (Right) All s… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Manipulable feature groups with homogeneous costs can be retained and regularized. We compute the optimal support and regularization level exactly for a d = 4 example with diagonal costs. Features {1, 2} are a manipulable pair with average manipulability κ and relative cost heterogeneity δ within the pair; features 3 and 4 have low manipulability. We vary κ on the x-axis and δ on the y-axis. (Left) The exact optimal… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Less manipulable correlated proxies can replace manipulable features. We compute the optimal support and regularization level exactly for a d = 4 example with correlated features. Feature 1 is predictive but manipulable, feature 2 is a correlated less manipulable proxy for feature 1 with zero direct coefficient in θ ∗ , and features 3 and 4 are less manipulable baseline features. We vary the correlation ρ between fe… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Feature selection under optimal regularization retains many features while keeping post-manipulation error low. (Left) Post-manipulation MSE at manipulation intensity α = 1 for all methods. (Middle) Post-manipulation MSE under varying α for the oracle OPT ] and the sup…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The selected model reflects the joint predictability-manipulability structure, rather than dropping all intensely coded features. (Left) HCC groups with nonzero prevalence in the data among the top-ten diagnosis groups identified by Kronick et al. (2025a). The top-ten …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A homogeneous manipulable pair can be retained and regularized when sufficiently predictive. We compute the optimal support and regularization level for d = 4 features with diagonal costs. Features {1, 2} are a homogeneous manipulable pair with common signal level a an…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Low-dimensional synthetic benchmarks validate our proposed weighted screen-and￾refit method. (Left) Final strategic MSE normalized by the exact grid oracle MSE on the same instance, MSEstrat(θb)/MSEstrat(θ OR(S ⋆ , λ⋆ )). A value of 1 means that the method attains the …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Median oracle ratios by synthetic regime. Each entry reports the median final strategic MSE normalized by the exact grid oracle MSE, MSEstrat(θb)/MSEstrat(θ OR(S ⋆ , λ⋆ )), across the five replications in the corresponding regime. The proposed weighted screen-and-refit…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution of HCC counts per beneficiary. The figure shows the number of V28 HCCs per beneficiary in the baseline data and in the low, main, and high upcoding scenarios. Only HCCs with nonzero baseline prevalence are included. The baseline is sparse, with mean 1.52 H…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Calibration of simulated upcoding across target HCCs and scenarios. (Left) Baseline, target, and achieved prevalence after applying the V28 hierarchy for each target HCC under the low, main, and high scenarios. The achieved prevalences closely track the calibration ta…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Visualization of the manipulation-ease matrix. (Left) Largest HCC diagonal entries of the final H−1 , grouped by the source of the diagonal score. (Right) The final inverse-cost matrix over HCCs with nonzero baseline prevalence, including the block component. qualitat…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Post-manipulation MSE under varying manipulation intensity α for all baselines. Each curve reports median post-manipulation MSE as the manipulation intensity α varies, shown on a log scale. The proposed support-restricted ridge estimator with k = 25 remains close to t…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Support path for top-ten diagnosis groups with nonzero prevalence. Rows show the HCC groups that belong to the top-ten diagnosis groups identified by Kronick et al. (2025a), and columns show exact-cardinality support-restricted ridge solutions at different support siz…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Signal–manipulability selection map. Each point is an HCC with nonzero prevalence in the data. Diamonds mark HCCs among the top-ten diagnosis groups identified by Kronick et al. (2025a), and labels are shown for the diagnosis groups that are dropped or belong to the t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references

  1. [1]

    The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization , volume =

    Bengt Holmstrom and Paul Milgrom , title =. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization , volume =

  2. [2]

    Strategic classification , booktitle =

    Moritz Hardt and Nimrod Megiddo and Christos. Strategic classification , booktitle =

  3. [3]

    Causal strategic linear regression , booktitle =

    Yonadav Shavit and Benjamin. Causal strategic linear regression , booktitle =

  4. [4]

    Ngo and Logan Stapleton and Hoda Heidari and Zhiwei Steven Wu , title =

    Keegan Harris and Dung Daniel T. Ngo and Logan Stapleton and Hoda Heidari and Zhiwei Steven Wu , title =. Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning , year =

  5. [5]

    Parikh and Maggie Makar and Jenna Wiens , title =

    Trenton Chang and Lindsay Warrenburg and Sae-Hwan Park and Ravi B. Parikh and Maggie Makar and Jenna Wiens , title =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , year =

  6. [6]

    Shenfeld and Ravi B

    Dylan Zapzalka and Trenton Chang and Lindsay Warrenburg and Sae-Hwan Park and Daniel K. Shenfeld and Ravi B. Parikh and Jenna Wiens and Maggie Makar , title =

  7. [7]

    Time-to-Event Estimation with Unreliably Reported Events in Medicare Health Plan Payment , author=

  8. [8]

    ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation , volume =

    Jon Kleinberg and Manish Raghavan , title =. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation , volume =

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Wang , title =

    Nika Haghtalab and Nicole Immorlica and Brendan Lucier and Jack Z. Wang , title =. Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , year =

  2. [10]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , year =

    Yiling Chen and Yang Liu and Chara Podimata , title =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , year =

  3. [11]

    Chara Podimata , title =

  4. [12]

    Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning , year =

    John Miller and Smitha Milli and Moritz Hardt , title =. Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning , year =

  5. [13]

    Dragan and Moritz Hardt , title =

    Smitha Milli and John Miller and Anca D. Dragan and Moritz Hardt , title =. Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , year =

  6. [14]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , year =

    Tinashe Handina and Eric Mazumdar , title =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , year =

  7. [15]

    Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Economics and Computation , year =

    Jinshuo Dong and Aaron Roth and Zachary Schutzman and Bo Waggoner and Zhiwei Steven Wu , title =. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Economics and Computation , year =

  8. [16]

    Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning , year =

    Sagi Levanon and Nir Rosenfeld , title =. Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning , year =

  9. [17]

    Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning , year =

    Elan Rosenfeld and Nir Rosenfeld , title =. Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning , year =

  10. [18]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , year =

    Keegan Harris and Hoda Heidari and Zhiwei Steven Wu , title =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , year =

  11. [19]

    Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Economics and Computation , year =

    Kun Jin and Xueru Zhang and Mohammad Mahdi Khalili and Parinaz Naghizadeh and Mingyan Liu , title =. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Economics and Computation , year =

  12. [20]

    Manipulation-Robust Prediction , journal =

    Daniel Björkegren and Joshua. Manipulation-Robust Prediction , journal =. 2025 , note =

    2025

  13. [21]

    Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning , year =

    Guy Horowitz and Nir Rosenfeld , title =. Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning , year =

  14. [22]

    Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing , year =

    Saba Ahmadi and Hedyeh Beyhaghi and Avrim Blum and Keziah Naggita , title =. Symposium on Foundations of Responsible Computing , year =

  15. [23]

    Shapley , title =

    Lloyd S. Shapley , title =. Contributions to the Theory of Games, Volume II , publisher =

  16. [24]

    Buhmann and Andreas Krause and Sebastian Tschiatschek , title =

    Andrew An Bian and Joachim M. Buhmann and Andreas Krause and Sebastian Tschiatschek , title =. Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning , year =

  17. [25]

    Nemhauser and Laurence A

    George L. Nemhauser and Laurence A. Wolsey and Marshall L. Fisher , title =. Mathematical Programming , volume =

  18. [26]

    Journal of Political Economy , volume =

    Michael Geruso and Timothy Layton , title =. Journal of Political Economy , volume =

  19. [27]

    Michael Chua and Ramona Krauss and Logan Johnson and Daniel Waldo , title =

    Richard Kronick and F. Michael Chua and Ramona Krauss and Logan Johnson and Daniel Waldo , title =. Health Affairs , volume =

  20. [28]

    Insurer-Level Estimates of Revenue From Differential Coding in

    Kronick, Richard and Chua,. Insurer-Level Estimates of Revenue From Differential Coding in. Annals of Internal Medicine , volume =

  21. [29]

    2025 , url =

    Comment Letter on Advance Notice of Methodological Changes for Calendar Year. 2025 , url =

    2025

  22. [30]

    Health Services Research , volume =

    Sherri Rose , title =. Health Services Research , volume =

  23. [31]

    Reitsma and Thomas G

    Marissa B. Reitsma and Thomas G. McGuire and Sherri Rose , title =. JAMA Health Forum , volume =

  24. [32]

    Pope and Melvin Ingber and Sara Freeman and Lindsey Patterson and Michael Cohen and Patricia Keenan , title =

    John Kautter and Gregory C. Pope and Melvin Ingber and Sara Freeman and Lindsey Patterson and Michael Cohen and Patricia Keenan , title =. Medicare & Medicaid Research Review , volume =

  25. [33]

    Harris and Tim R

    Douglas N. Harris and Tim R. Sass and Anastasia Semykina , title =. 2010 , url =

    2010

  26. [34]

    Pope and John Kautter and Randall P

    Gregory C. Pope and John Kautter and Randall P. Ellis and Arlene S. Ash and John Z. Ayanian and Lisa I. Iezzoni and Melvin J. Ingber and Jesse M. Levy and John Robst , title =. Health Care Financing Review , volume =

  27. [35]

    Risk Adjustment , year =

  28. [36]

    2024 , url =

    Report to. 2024 , url =

    2024

  29. [37]

    2025 , url =

    March 2025 Report to the. 2025 , url =

    2025

  30. [38]

    2024 , url =

    The Medicare Advantage program: Status report , institution =. 2024 , url =

    2024

  31. [39]

    2023 , url =

    Advance Notice of Methodological Changes for Calendar Year. 2023 , url =

    2023

  32. [40]

    2013 , url =

    Advance Notice of Methodological Changes for Calendar Year. 2013 , url =

    2013

  33. [41]

    James and Jay Shroff and Andrew M

    Meghan Bellerose and Hannah O. James and Jay Shroff and Andrew M. Ryan and David J. Meyers , title =. Health Affairs , volume =

  34. [42]

    Michael McWilliams and Gabe Weinreb and Mary Beth Landrum and Michael E

    J. Michael McWilliams and Gabe Weinreb and Mary Beth Landrum and Michael E. Chernew , title =. Health Affairs , volume =

  35. [43]

    Meyers and Amal N

    David J. Meyers and Amal N. Trivedi , title =. Medical Care , volume =

  36. [44]

    McGuire and Anna

    Thomas G. McGuire and Anna. Improving the performance of risk adjustment systems:. American Journal of Health Economics , volume =

  37. [45]

    American Economic Journal: Economic Policy , volume =

    Paul Niehaus and Antonia Atanassova and Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan , title =. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy , volume =. 2013 , pages =

    2013

  38. [46]

    Grosh and Judy L

    Margaret E. Grosh and Judy L. Baker , title =. 1995 , url =

    1995

  39. [47]

    American Economic Journal: Economic Policy , volume =

    Adriana Camacho and Emily Conover , title =. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy , volume =

  40. [48]

    Velarde , title =

    Rashiel B. Velarde , title =. 2018 , url =

    2018

  41. [49]

    Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning , year =

    Juan Carlos Perdomo , title =. Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning , year =

  42. [50]

    2025 , month =

    Medicare Advantage in 2025: Enrollment Update and Key Trends , author =. 2025 , month =

    2025

  43. [51]

    New England Journal of Medicine , volume=

    The ``. New England Journal of Medicine , volume=

  44. [52]

    Journal of the European Economic Association , volume =

    César Martinelli and Susan Wendy Parker , title =. Journal of the European Economic Association , volume =

  45. [53]

    Health Economics Review , volume =

    Camilo Arias , title =. Health Economics Review , volume =

  46. [54]

    Fei Zhang and Patrick P. K. Chan and Battista Biggio and Daniel S. Yeung and Fabio Roli , title =. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics , volume =

  47. [55]

    Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning , year =

    Huang Xiao and Battista Biggio and Gavin Brown and Giorgio Fumera and Claudia Eckert and Fabio Roli , title =. Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning , year =

  48. [56]

    Health Services Research , volume=

    Robust Machine Learning Variable Importance Analyses of Medical Conditions for Health Care Spending , author=. Health Services Research , volume=

  49. [57]

    Laszlo Gyorfi and Michael Kohler and Adam Krzyzak and Harro Walk , publisher =

  50. [58]

    Tibshirani , booktitle =

    Pratik Patil and Jin-Hong Du and Ryan J. Tibshirani , booktitle =. Optimal Ridge Regularization for Out-of-Distribution Prediction , year =

  51. [59]

    Tibshirani , booktitle =

    Pratik Patil and Alessandro Rinaldo and Ryan J. Tibshirani , booktitle =. Estimating Functionals of the Out-of-Sample Error Distribution in High-Dimensional Ridge Regression , year =

  52. [60]

    Tibshirani , booktitle =

    Pratik Patil and Yuting Wei and Alessandro Rinaldo and Ryan J. Tibshirani , booktitle =. Uniform Consistency of Cross-Validation for High-Dimensional Ridge Regression , year =

Pith tools

Reviewed June 26, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.