  When reasoning about strategic behavior in a machine learning context it is
tempting to combine standard microfoundations of rational agents with the
statistical decision theory underlying classification. In this work, we argue
that a direct combination of these standard ingredients leads to brittle
solution concepts of limited descriptive and prescriptive value. First, we show
that rational agents with perfect information produce discontinuities in the
aggregate response to a decision rule that we often do not observe empirically.
Second, when any positive fraction of agents is not perfectly strategic,
desirable stable points -- where the classifier is optimal for the data it
entails -- cease to exist. Third, optimal decision rules under standard
microfoundations maximize a measure of negative externality known as social
burden within a broad class of possible assumptions about agent behavior.
  Recognizing these limitations we explore alternatives to standard
microfoundations for binary classification. We start by describing a set of
desiderata that help navigate the space of possible assumptions about how
agents respond to a decision rule. In particular, we analyze a natural
constraint on feature manipulations, and discuss properties that are sufficient
to guarantee the robust existence of stable points. Building on these insights,
we then propose the noisy response model. Inspired by smoothed analysis and
empirical observations, noisy response incorporates imperfection in the agent
responses, which we show mitigates the limitations of standard
microfoundations. Our model retains analytical tractability, leads to more
robust insights about stable points, and imposes a lower social burden at
optimality.
