mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Unfairness Despite Awareness: Group-Fair Classification with Strategic Agents

arXiv 2112.02746 ↗First posted 6 Dec 2021cs.MA cs.CY cs.GTcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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 decision making systems 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 could have on fair classifiers and derive conditions under which this behavior leads to fair classifiers becoming less fair than their conventional counterparts under the same measure of fairness that the fair classifier takes into account. These conditions are related to the the way in which the fair classifier remedies unfairness on the original unmanipulated data: fair classifiers which remedy unfairness by becoming more selective than their conventional counterparts are the ones that become less fair than their counterparts when agents are strategic. We further demonstrate that both the increased selectiveness of the fair classifier, and consequently the loss of fairness, arises when performing fair learning on domains in which the advantaged group is overrepresented in the region near (and on the beneficial side of) the decision boundary of conventional classifiers. Finally, we observe experimentally, using several datasets and learning methods, that this fairness reversal is common, and that our theoretical characterization of the fairness reversal conditions indeed holds in most such cases.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Dec 2021.

Builds on

13 of 22 references.

References · 13

  1. 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,287
  2. 2017Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attackscited by 6,326
  3. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
  4. 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,304
  5. 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
  6. 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 671
  7. 2018A Reductions Approach to Fair Classificationcited by 585
  8. 2017Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairnesscited by 381
  9. 2015Strategic Classificationcited by 256
  10. 2020To be Robust or to be Fair: Towards Fairness in Adversarial Trainingcited by 137
  11. 2017Strategic Classification from Revealed Preferencescited by 126
  12. 2018The Social Cost of Strategic Classificationcited by 105
1 more
  1. 2020Manipulation-Proof Machine Learningcited by 19

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 5; 2023: 2; 2024: 2.

9 papers.