An Experimental Study on the Rashomon Effect of Balancing Methods in Imbalanced Classification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.01557v4
• Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:43:49 GMT
• Title: An Experimental Study on the Rashomon Effect of Balancing Methods in Imbalanced Classification
• Authors: Mustafa Cavus, Przemysław Biecek,
• Abstract summary: This paper examines the impact of balancing methods on predictive multiplicity using the Rashomon effect. It is crucial because the blind model selection in data-centric AI is risky from a set of approximately equally accurate models.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Predictive models may generate biased predictions when classifying imbalanced datasets. This happens when the model favors the majority class, leading to low performance in accurately predicting the minority class. To address this issue, balancing or resampling methods are critical data-centric AI approaches in the modeling process to improve prediction performance. However, there have been debates and questions about the functionality of these methods in recent years. In particular, many candidate models may exhibit very similar predictive performance, called the Rashomon effect, in model selection, and they may even produce different predictions for the same observations. Selecting one of these models without considering the predictive multiplicity -- which is the case of yielding conflicting models' predictions for any sample -- can result in blind selection. In this paper, the impact of balancing methods on predictive multiplicity is examined using the Rashomon effect. It is crucial because the blind model selection in data-centric AI is risky from a set of approximately equally accurate models. This may lead to severe problems in model selection, validation, and explanation. To tackle this matter, we conducted real dataset experiments to observe the impact of balancing methods on predictive multiplicity through the Rashomon effect by using a newly proposed metric obscurity in addition to the existing ones: ambiguity and discrepancy. Our findings showed that balancing methods inflate the predictive multiplicity and yield varying results. To monitor the trade-off between the prediction performance and predictive multiplicity for conducting the modeling process responsibly, we proposed using the extended version of the performance-gain plot when balancing the training data.

Related papers

• Influence Functions for Scalable Data Attribution in Diffusion Models [52.92223039302037]
  Diffusion models have led to significant advancements in generative modelling. Yet their widespread adoption poses challenges regarding data attribution and interpretability. In this paper, we aim to help address such challenges by developing an textitinfluence functions framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T17:59:02Z)
• Predictive Churn with the Set of Good Models [64.05949860750235]
  We study the effect of conflicting predictions over the set of near-optimal machine learning models. We present theoretical results on the expected churn between models within the Rashomon set. We show how our approach can be used to better anticipate, reduce, and avoid churn in consumer-facing applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-12T16:15:25Z)
• The Effect of Balancing Methods on Model Behavior in Imbalanced Classification Problems [4.370097023410272]
  Imbalanced data poses a challenge in classification as model performance is affected by insufficient learning from minority classes. This study addresses a more challenging aspect of balancing methods - their impact on model behavior. To capture these changes, Explainable Artificial Intelligence tools are used to compare models trained on datasets before and after balancing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-30T22:25:01Z)
• A prediction and behavioural analysis of machine learning methods for modelling travel mode choice [0.26249027950824505]
  We conduct a systematic comparison of different modelling approaches, across multiple modelling problems, in terms of the key factors likely to affect model choice. Results indicate that the models with the highest disaggregate predictive performance provide poorer estimates of behavioural indicators and aggregate mode shares. It is also observed that the MNL model performs robustly in a variety of situations, though ML techniques can improve the estimates of behavioural indices such as Willingness to Pay.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-11T11:10:32Z)
• Predictive Multiplicity in Probabilistic Classification [25.111463701666864]
  We present a framework for measuring predictive multiplicity in probabilistic classification. We demonstrate the incidence and prevalence of predictive multiplicity in real-world tasks. Our results emphasize the need to report predictive multiplicity more widely.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-02T16:25:29Z)
• Pathologies of Pre-trained Language Models in Few-shot Fine-tuning [50.3686606679048]
  We show that pre-trained language models with few examples show strong prediction bias across labels. Although few-shot fine-tuning can mitigate the prediction bias, our analysis shows models gain performance improvement by capturing non-task-related features. These observations alert that pursuing model performance with fewer examples may incur pathological prediction behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-17T15:55:18Z)
• Test-time Collective Prediction [73.74982509510961]
  Multiple parties in machine learning want to jointly make predictions on future test points. Agents wish to benefit from the collective expertise of the full set of agents, but may not be willing to release their data or model parameters. We explore a decentralized mechanism to make collective predictions at test time, leveraging each agent's pre-trained model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-22T18:29:58Z)
• Sample Selection Bias in Evaluation of Prediction Performance of Causal Models [0.0]
  Causal models are notoriously difficult to validate because they make untestable assumptions regarding confounding. We revisit the prediction performance of several recently proposed causal models tested on a genetic perturbation data set of Kemmeren. We find that sample selection bias is likely a key driver of model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-03T15:15:30Z)
• Characterizing Fairness Over the Set of Good Models Under Selective Labels [69.64662540443162]
  We develop a framework for characterizing predictive fairness properties over the set of models that deliver similar overall performance. We provide tractable algorithms to compute the range of attainable group-level predictive disparities. We extend our framework to address the empirically relevant challenge of selectively labelled data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-02T02:11:37Z)
• Models, Pixels, and Rewards: Evaluating Design Trade-offs in Visual Model-Based Reinforcement Learning [109.74041512359476]
  We study a number of design decisions for the predictive model in visual MBRL algorithms. We find that a range of design decisions that are often considered crucial, such as the use of latent spaces, have little effect on task performance. We show how this phenomenon is related to exploration and how some of the lower-scoring models on standard benchmarks will perform the same as the best-performing models when trained on the same training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-08T18:03:21Z)
• A comprehensive study on the prediction reliability of graph neural networks for virtual screening [0.0]
  We investigate the effects of model architectures, regularization methods, and loss functions on the prediction performance and reliability of classification results. Our result highlights that correct choice of regularization and inference methods is evidently important to achieve high success rate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-17T10:13:31Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.