mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Incentivizing Desirable Effort Profiles in Strategic Classification: The Role of Causality and Uncertainty

arXiv 2502.06749 ↗First posted 10 Feb 2025cs.GT cs.CY cs.LGcited by 8

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We study strategic classification in binary decision-making settings where agents can modify their features in order to improve their classification outcomes. Importantly, our work considers the causal structure across different features, acknowledging that effort in a given feature may affect other features. The main goal of our work is to understand when and how much agent effort is invested towards desirable features, and how this is influenced by the deployed classifier, the causal structure of the agent's features, their ability to modify them, and the information available to the agent about the classifier and the feature causal graph. In the complete information case, when agents know the classifier and the causal structure of the problem, we derive conditions ensuring that rational agents focus on features favored by the principal. We show that designing classifiers to induce desirable behavior is generally non-convex, though tractable in special cases. We also extend our analysis to settings where agents have incomplete information about the classifier or the causal graph. While optimal effort selection is again a non-convex problem under general uncertainty, we highlight special cases of partial uncertainty where this selection problem becomes tractable. Our results indicate that uncertainty drives agents to favor features with higher expected importance and lower variance, potentially misaligning with principal preferences. Finally, numerical experiments based on a cardiovascular disease risk study illustrate how to incentivize desirable modifications under uncertainty.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Feb 2025.

Builds on

24 of 45 references.

References · 24

  1. 2015Strategic Classificationcited by 256
  2. 2020Algorithmic Recourse: from Counterfactual Explanations to Interventionscited by 250
  3. 2020Algorithmic recourse under imperfect causal knowledge: a probabilistic approachcited by 139
  4. 2017Strategic Classification from Revealed Preferencescited by 126
  5. 2020A survey of algorithmic recourse: definitions, formulations, solutions, and prospectscited by 118
  6. 2022Causal Machine Learning: A Survey and Open Problemscited by 107
  7. 2018The Social Cost of Strategic Classificationcited by 105
  8. 2021Towards Robust and Reliable Algorithmic Recoursecited by 101
  9. 2019Strategic Classification is Causal Modeling in Disguisecited by 92
  10. 2018How Do Classifiers Induce Agents To Invest Effort Strategically?cited by 82
  11. 2018The Disparate Effects of Strategic Manipulationcited by 75
  12. 2020On the Fairness of Causal Algorithmic Recoursecited by 69
12 more
  1. 2021Strategic Classification in the Darkcited by 66
  2. 2020Causal Strategic Linear Regressioncited by 65
  3. 2020PAC-Learning for Strategic Classificationcited by 50
  4. 2020The Strategic Perceptroncited by 48
  5. 2021Information Discrepancy in Strategic Learningcited by 48
  6. 2020The Role of Randomness and Noise in Strategic Classificationcited by 40
  7. 2021Stateful Strategic Regressioncited by 32
  8. 2023Causal Strategic Classification: A Tale of Two Shiftscited by 30
  9. 2022On classification of strategic agents who can both game and improvecited by 27
  10. 2022Improvement-Focused Causal Recourse (ICR)cited by 20
  11. 2024The Double-Edged Sword of Behavioral Responses in Strategic Classification: Theory and User Studiescited by 9
  12. 2019Price of Privacy in the Keynesian Beauty Contestcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 5.

8 papers.