mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Addressing Strategic Manipulation Disparities in Fair Classification

arXiv 2205.10842 ↗First posted 22 May 2022cs.CY cs.LG stat.MLcited by 8

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

In real-world classification settings, such as loan application evaluation or content moderation on online platforms, individuals respond to classifier predictions by strategically updating their features to increase their likelihood of receiving a particular (positive) decision (at a certain cost). Yet, when different demographic groups have different feature distributions or pay different update costs, prior work has shown that individuals from minority groups often pay a higher cost to update their features. Fair classification aims to address such classifier performance disparities by constraining the classifiers to satisfy statistical fairness properties. However, we show that standard fairness constraints do not guarantee that the constrained classifier reduces the disparity in strategic manipulation cost. To address such biases in strategic settings and provide equal opportunities for strategic manipulation, we propose a constrained optimization framework that constructs classifiers that lower the strategic manipulation cost for minority groups. We develop our framework by studying theoretical connections between group-specific strategic cost disparity and standard selection rate fairness metrics (e.g., statistical rate and true positive rate). Empirically, we show the efficacy of this approach over multiple real-world datasets.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 54 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 May 2022.

Builds on

25 of 54 references.

References · 25

  1. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
  2. 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 804
  3. 2018Mitigating Unwanted Biases with Adversarial Learningcited by 663
  4. 2018A Reductions Approach to Fair Classificationcited by 587
  5. 2021Retiring Adult: New Datasets for Fair Machine Learningcited by 449
  6. 2018Actionable Recourse in Linear Classificationcited by 328
  7. 2020Performative Predictioncited by 327
  8. 2015Strategic Classificationcited by 257
  9. 2018Examining Gender and Race Bias in Two Hundred Sentiment Analysis Systemscited by 234
  10. 2020Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 194
  11. 2018Classification with Fairness Constraints: A Meta-Algorithm with Provable Guaranteescited by 146
  12. 2017Strategic Classification from Revealed Preferencescited by 128
13 more
  1. 2018The Social Cost of Strategic Classificationcited by 105
  2. 2021Outside the Echo Chamber: Optimizing the Performative Riskcited by 96
  3. 2018How Do Classifiers Induce Agents To Invest Effort Strategically?cited by 83
  4. 2018The Disparate Effects of Strategic Manipulationcited by 75
  5. 2020On the Fairness of Causal Algorithmic Recoursecited by 70
  6. 2021Strategic Classification in the Darkcited by 66
  7. 2019FAHT: An Adaptive Fairness-aware Decision Tree Classifiercited by 63
  8. 2021Strategic Classification Made Practicalcited by 59
  9. 2019Equalizing Recourse across Groupscited by 55
  10. 2021Alternative Microfoundations for Strategic Classificationcited by 47
  11. 2019Fair Classification and Social Welfarecited by 40
  12. 2020The Role of Randomness and Noise in Strategic Classificationcited by 40
  13. 2021Unfairness Despite Awareness: Group-Fair Classification with Strategic Agentscited by 9

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 1; 2026: 5.

8 papers.