Performative predictions influence the very outcomes they aim to forecast. We study performative predictions that affect a sample (e.g., only existing users of an app) and/or the whole population (e.g., all potential app users). This raises the question of how well models generalize under performativity. For example, how well can we draw insights about new app users based on existing users when both of them react to the app's predictions? We address this question by embedding performative predictions into statistical learning theory. We prove generalization bounds under performative effects on the sample, on the population, and on both. A key intuition behind our proofs is that in the worst case, the population negates predictions, while the sample deceptively fulfills them. We cast such self-negating and self-fulfilling predictions as min-max and min-min risk functionals in Wasserstein space, respectively. Our analysis reveals a fundamental trade-off between performatively changing the world and learning from it: the more a model affects data, the less it can learn from it. Moreover, our analysis results in a surprising insight on how to improve generalization guarantees by retraining on performatively distorted samples. We illustrate our bounds in a case study on prediction-informed assignments of unemployed German residents to job trainings, drawing upon administrative labor market records from 1975 to 2017 in Germany.
University of California, Berkeley（加州大学伯克利分校）；Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems（马克斯·普朗克智能系统研究所）
In performative prediction, the deployment of a predictive model triggers a shift in the data distribution. As these shifts are typically unknown ahead of time, the learner needs to deploy a model to get feedback about the distribution it induces. We study the problem of finding near-optimal models under performativity while maintaining low regret. On the surface, this problem might seem equivalent to a bandit problem. However, it exhibits a fundamentally richer feedback structure that we refer to as performative feedback: after every deployment, the learner receives samples from the shifted d…
Performative distribution shift captures the setting where the choice of which ML model is deployed changes the data distribution. For example, a bank which uses the number of open credit lines to determine a customer's risk of default on a loan may induce customers to open more credit lines in order to improve their chances of being approved. Because of the interactions between the model and data distribution, finding the optimal model parameters is challenging. Works in this area have focused on finding stable points, which can be far from optimal. Here we introduce performative gradient des…
A recent line of work has focused on training machine learning (ML) models in the performative setting, i.e. when the data distribution reacts to the deployed model. The goal in this setting is to learn a model which both induces a favorable data distribution and performs well on the induced distribution, thereby minimizing the test loss. Previous work on finding an optimal model assumes that the data distribution immediately adapts to the deployed model. In practice, however, this may not be the case, as the population may take time to adapt to the model. In many applications, the data distri…
When predictions support decisions they may influence the outcome they aim to predict. We call such predictions performative; the prediction influences the target. Performativity is a well-studied phenomenon in policy-making that has so far been neglected in supervised learning. When ignored, performativity surfaces as undesirable distribution shift, routinely addressed with retraining. We develop a risk minimization framework for performative prediction bringing together concepts from statistics, game theory, and causality. A conceptual novelty is an equilibrium notion we call performative st…
Decision-makers often act in response to data-driven predictions, with the goal of achieving favorable outcomes. In such settings, predictions don't passively forecast the future; instead, predictions actively shape the distribution of outcomes they are meant to predict. This performative prediction setting raises new challenges for learning "optimal" decision rules. In particular, existing solution concepts do not address the apparent tension between the goals of forecasting outcomes accurately and steering individuals to achieve desirable outcomes. To contend with this concern, we introduce …
In performative prediction, the choice of a model influences the distribution of future data, typically through actions taken based on the model's predictions. We initiate the study of stochastic optimization for performative prediction. What sets this setting apart from traditional stochastic optimization is the difference between merely updating model parameters and deploying the new model. The latter triggers a shift in the distribution that affects future data, while the former keeps the distribution as is. Assuming smoothness and strong convexity, we prove rates of convergence for both gr…
Many popular algorithmic fairness measures depend on the joint distribution of predictions, outcomes, and a sensitive feature like race or gender. These measures are sensitive to distribution shift: a predictor which is trained to satisfy one of these fairness definitions may become unfair if the distribution changes. In performative prediction settings, however, predictors are precisely intended to induce distribution shift. For example, in many applications in criminal justice, healthcare, and consumer finance, the purpose of building a predictor is to reduce the rate of adverse outcomes suc…
