Price of Transparency in Strategic Machine Learning
Open accessAbstract
Based on the observation that the transparency of an algorithm comes with a cost for the algorithm designer when the users (data providers) are strategic, this paper studies the impact of strategic intent of the users on the design and performance of transparent ML algorithms. We quantitatively study the {\bf price of transparency} in the context of strategic classification algorithms, by modeling the problem as a nonzero-sum game between the users and the algorithm designer. The cost of having a transparent algorithm is measured by a quantity, named here as price of transparency which is the ratio of the designer cost at the Stackelberg equilibrium, when the algorithm is transparent (which allows users to be strategic) to that of the setting where the algorithm is not transparent.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Akyol et al. initially attempted a quantitative analysis of the cost of transparency (PoT) in ML algorithms.
“Akyol et al. [183].initially attempted a quantitative analysis of the cost of transparency (PoT) in ML algorithms.”
From Interpreting Black-Box Models: A Review on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (2024) · cites this paper as [183]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Spence, M. (1973) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1882010 · Cited by 17,814 · see citing works
Vector Quantization and Signal Compression
Gersho, A., & Gray, R. M. (1992) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-3626-0 · Cited by 7,055 · see citing works
Strategic information transmission
Crawford, V. P., & Sobel, J. (1982) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1913390 · Cited by 4,293 · see citing works
The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information
Pasquale, F. (2015) · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674736061 · Cited by 3,796 · see citing works
Quantizing for minimum distortion
Max, J. (1960) · IEEE Transactions on Information Theory · doi:10.1109/tit.1960.1057548 · Cited by 2,070 · see citing works
Bennett, W. R. (1948) · Bell System Technical Journal · doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01340.x · Cited by 977 · see citing works
Optimal Information Disclosure
Rayo, L., & Segal, I. (2010) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/657922 · Cited by 487 · see citing works
Family scholarly culture and educational success: Books and schooling in 27 nations
Evans, M., Kelley, J., Sikora, J., & Treiman, D. J. (2010) · Research in Social Stratification and Mobility · doi:10.1016/j.rssm.2010.01.002 · Cited by 486 · see citing works
What the Seller Won't Tell You: Persuasion and Disclosure in Markets
Milgrom, P. (2008) · The Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.22.2.115 · Cited by 190 · see citing works
Optimum mean-square quantization of a noisy input (Corresp.)
Fine, T. (1965) · IEEE Transactions on Information Theory · doi:10.1109/tit.1965.1053741
Empirical quantizer design in the presence of source noise or channel noise
Linder, T., Lugosi, G., & Zeger, K. (1997) · IEEE Transactions on Information Theory · doi:10.1109/18.556117
The distortion of vector quantizers trained on n vectors decreases to the optimum as O/sub p/(1/n)
Chou, P. A. (n.d.) · Proceedings of 1994 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory · doi:10.1109/isit.1994.395072
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- [1][1] J. Angwin, J. Larson, S. Mattu, and L. Kirchner, 'Machine bias: There's software used across the country to predict future criminals. and it's biased against blacks,' ProPublica, May , vol. 23, 2016. -
- [2][2] D. K. Citron and F. Pasquale, 'The scored society: due process for automated predictions,' Washington Law Review , vol. 89, 2014. -
- [4][4] M. Hardt, N Megiddo, C. Papadimitriou, and M. Wootters, 'Strategic classification,' in Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science . ACM, 2016, pp. 111-122. -
- [6][6] E. Akyol, C. Langbort, and T. Bas ¸ar, 'Information-theoretic approach to strategic communication as a hierarchical game,' Proceedings of the IEEE, in press . -
- [12][12] P. Nelson, 'Advertising as information,' Journal of Political -
- [13][13] R. Kihlstrom and M. Riordan, 'Advertising as a signal,' The Journal of Political Economy , pp. 427-450, 1984. Economy , vol. 82, no. 4, pp. 729-754, 1974. -
- [18][18] M. Gentzkow and E. Kamenica, 'Bayesian persuasion,' American Economic Review , vol. 101, no. 6, pp. 2590-2615, 2011. -
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Barredo Arrieta, A., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., Garcia, S., Gil-Lopez, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., et al. (2020) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012 · Cited by 10,423 · see citing works
Interpreting Black-Box Models: A Review on Explainable Artificial Intelligence
Hassija, V., Chamola, V., Mahapatra, A., Singal, A., Goel, D., Huang, K., Scardapane, S., Spinelli, I., Mahmud, M., & Hussain, A. (2024) · Cognitive Computation · doi:10.1007/s12559-023-10179-8 · Cited by 2,062 · see citing works
- Authors
- Akyol, E., Langbort, C., & Basar, T.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2016
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1610.08210
- OpenAlex
- W2544951221
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1933331)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Game Theory and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Keywords
- strategic classification, algorithmic transparency, Stackelberg equilibrium, non-zero-sum games, algorithm design
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
