Collective dynamics of strategic classification
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Classification algorithms based on Artificial Intelligence (AI) are nowadays applied in high-stakes decisions in finance, healthcare, criminal justice, or education. Individuals can strategically adapt to the information gathered about classifiers, which in turn may require algorithms to be re-trained. Which collective dynamics will result from users' adaptation and algorithms' retraining? We apply evolutionary game theory to address this question. Our framework provides a mathematically rigorous way of treating the problem of feedback loops between collectives of users and institutions, allowing to test interventions to mitigate the adverse effects of strategic adaptation. As a case study, we consider institutions deploying algorithms for credit lending. We consider several scenarios, each representing different interaction paradigms. When algorithms are not robust against strategic manipulation, we are able to capture previous challenges discussed in the strategic classification literature, whereby users either pay excessive costs to meet the institutions' expectations (leading to high social costs) or game the algorithm (e.g., provide fake information). From this baseline setting, we test the role of improving gaming detection and providing algorithmic recourse. We show that increased detection capabilities reduce social costs and could lead to users' improvement; when perfect classifiers are not feasible (likely to occur in practice), algorithmic recourse can steer the dynamics towards high users' improvement rates. The speed at which the institutions re-adapt to the user's population plays a role in the final outcome. Finally, we explore a scenario where strict institutions provide actionable recourse to their unsuccessful users and observe cycling dynamics so far unnoticed in the literature.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Aug 2025.
Builds on
15 of 34 references.
References · 15
- 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,086
- 2016European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a "right to explanation"cited by 343
- 2018Actionable Recourse in Linear Classificationcited by 327
- 2020Performative Predictioncited by 318
- 2015Strategic Classificationcited by 256
- 2018The Social Cost of Strategic Classificationcited by 105
- 2018How Do Classifiers Induce Agents To Invest Effort Strategically?cited by 82
- 2018The Disparate Effects of Strategic Manipulationcited by 75
- 2021Strategic Classification in the Darkcited by 66
- 2021Who Leads and Who Follows in Strategic Classification?cited by 53
- 2021Alternative Microfoundations for Strategic Classificationcited by 47
- 2022Learning in Stackelberg Games with Non-myopic Agentscited by 29
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
- 2026Social physics in the age of artificial intelligencecited by 4
- 2026Social physics in the age of artificial intelligence4 Mar 2026