mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Strategically Deceptive Model Deployment in Performative Prediction

arXiv 2506.09044 ↗First posted 10 Jun 2025cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Machine Learning systems are increasingly deployed in decision-making settings that shape user behavior and, in turn, the data on which future decisions are based. Performative Prediction (PP) formalizes this feedback loop by modeling how deployed models induce distributional shifts. It studies how to learn robust and well-performing models under such dynamics. However, existing PP frameworks typically assume that the model governing these decisions is the same model observed by users (therefore, to which they respond). In practice, deployer institutions may instead disclose curated models, while internally relying on distinct opaque models. We introduce Decoupled Performative Prediction (DPP), a framework that explicitly models mismatches between the model governing institutional decisions and the model that shapes user behavior. By analyzing the resulting optimization landscape, we show that DPP admits new different solutions that provably achieve lower risk for the institution than those under classical PP. We further propose an algorithm with provable convergence guarantees under standard assumptions, demonstrating how easy institutions can benefit from strategically deceptive deployment when they control model disclosure and users lack countervailing power. To capture the implications of such behavior, we introduce the deception cost, a quantitative measure of the degree of deception experienced by users. We study settings in which institutions incorporate this cost into the optimization process, motivated by reputational concerns or potential user abandonment, and show that such self-imposed constraints are insufficient to protect users. Overall, our results demonstrate that model disclosure is not merely an ethical consideration but a core technical design decision, underscoring the need for regulations that hold institutions accountable for deceptive deployment practices.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Jun 2025.

Builds on

19 of 33 references.

References · 19

  1. 2020Performative Predictioncited by 327
  2. 2015Strategic Classificationcited by 257
  3. 2018Delayed Impact of Fair Machine Learningcited by 184
  4. 2017Runaway Feedback Loops in Predictive Policingcited by 97
  5. 2021Outside the Echo Chamber: Optimizing the Performative Riskcited by 96
  6. 2020Stochastic Optimization for Performative Predictioncited by 93
  7. 2020Performative Prediction in a Stateful Worldcited by 90
  8. 2021How to Learn when Data Reacts to Your Model: Performative Gradient Descentcited by 71
  9. 2021Strategic Classification in the Darkcited by 66
  10. 2020Stochastic optimization with decision-dependent distributionscited by 65
  11. 2023Performative Prediction with Neural Networkscited by 34
  12. 2023Algorithmic Collective Action in Machine Learningcited by 31
7 more
  1. 2023Plug-in Performative Optimizationcited by 22
  2. 2024Stochastic Optimization Schemes for Performative Prediction with Nonconvex Losscited by 13
  3. 2024Optimal Classification under Performative Distribution Shiftcited by 10
  4. 2024Distributionally Robust Performative Predictioncited by 7
  5. 2025Algorithmic Collective Action with Two Collectivescited by 7
  6. 2025Statistical Collusion by Collectives on Learning Platformscited by 6
  7. 2024The Limitations of Model Retraining in the Face of Performativitycited by 4

Built on by

Not cited yet.