In settings where ML models are used to inform the allocation of resources, agents affected by the allocation decisions might have an incentive to strategically change their features to secure better outcomes. While prior work has studied strategic responses broadly, disentangling misreporting from genuine adaptation remains a fundamental challenge. In this paper, we propose a causally-motivated approach to identify and quantify how much an agent misreports on average by distinguishing deceptive changes in their features from genuine adaptation. Our key insight is that, unlike genuine adaptation, misreported features do not causally affect downstream variables (i.e., causal descendants). We exploit this asymmetry by comparing the causal effect of misreported features on their causal descendants as derived from manipulated datasets against those from unmanipulated datasets. We formally prove identifiability of the misreporting rate and characterize the variance of our estimator. We empirically validate our theoretical results using a semi-synthetic and real Medicare dataset with misreported data, demonstrating that our approach can be employed to identify misreporting in real-world scenarios.

Designing faithful yet accurate AI models is challenging, particularly in the field of individual treatment effect estimation (ITE). ITE prediction models deployed in critical settings such as healthcare should ideally be (i) accurate, and (ii) provide faithful explanations. However, current solutions are inadequate: state-of-the-art black-box models do not supply explanations, post-hoc explainers for black-box models lack faithfulness guarantees, and self-interpretable models greatly compromise accuracy. To address these issues, we propose DISCRET, a self-interpretable ITE framework that synthesizes faithful, rule-based explanations for each sample. A key insight behind DISCRET is that explanations can serve dually as database queries to identify similar subgroups of samples. We provide a novel RL algorithm to efficiently synthesize these explanations from a large search space. We evaluate DISCRET on diverse tasks involving tabular, image, and text data. DISCRET outperforms the best self-interpretable models and has accuracy comparable to the best black-box models while providing faithful explanations. DISCRET is available at https://github.com/wuyinjun-1993/DISCRET-ICML2024.

In many settings, machine learning models may be used to inform decisions that impact individuals or entities who interact with the model. Such entities, or *agents,* may *game* model decisions by manipulating their inputs to the model to obtain better outcomes and maximize some utility. We consider a multi-agent setting where the goal is to identify the “worst offenders:” agents that are gaming most aggressively. However, identifying such agents is difficult without knowledge of their utility function. Thus, we introduce a framework in which each agent’s tendency to game is parameterized via a scalar. We show that this gaming parameter is only partially identifiable. By recasting the problem as a causal effect estimation problem where different agents represent different “treatments,” we prove that a ranking of all agents by their gaming parameters is identifiable. We present empirical results in a synthetic data study validating the usage of causal effect estimation for gaming detection and show in a case study of diagnosis coding behavior in the U.S. that our approach highlights features associated with gaming.

Sudden changes in health care utilization during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic may have impacted the performance of clinical predictive models that were trained prior to the pandemic. In this study, we evaluated the performance over time of a machine learning, electronic health record-based mortality prediction algorithm currently used in clinical practice to identify patients with cancer who may benefit from early advance care planning conversations. We show that during the pandemic period, algorithm identification of high-risk patients had a substantial and sustained decline. Decreases in laboratory utilization during the peak of the pandemic may have contributed to drift. Calibration and overall discrimination did not markedly decline during the pandemic. This argues for careful attention to the performance and retraining of predictive algorithms that use inputs from the pandemic period.