Leo Breiman, the Rashomon Effect, and the Occam Dilemma

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.03884v1
• Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2025 03:54:33 GMT
• Title: Leo Breiman, the Rashomon Effect, and the Occam Dilemma
• Authors: Cynthia Rudin,
• Abstract summary: In the famous Two Cultures paper, Leo Breiman provided a visionary perspective on the cultures of ''data models'' and ''algorithmic models''<n>I provide a modern perspective on these approaches.
• Score: 22.32523634069206
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In the famous Two Cultures paper, Leo Breiman provided a visionary perspective on the cultures of ''data models'' (modeling with consideration of data generation) versus ''algorithmic models'' (vanilla machine learning models). I provide a modern perspective on these approaches. One of Breiman's key arguments against data models is the ''Rashomon Effect,'' which is the existence of many different-but-equally-good models. The Rashomon Effect implies that data modelers would not be able to determine which model generated the data. Conversely, one of his core advantages in favor of data models is simplicity, as he claimed there exists an ''Occam Dilemma,'' i.e., an accuracy-simplicity tradeoff. After 25 years of powerful computers, it has become clear that this claim is not generally true, in that algorithmic models do not need to be complex to be accurate; however, there are nuances that help explain Breiman's logic, specifically, that by ''simple,'' he appears to consider only linear models or unoptimized decision trees. Interestingly, the Rashomon Effect is a key tool in proving the nullification of the Occam Dilemma. To his credit though, Breiman did not have the benefit of modern computers, with which my observations are much easier to make. Breiman's goal for interpretability was somewhat intertwined with causality: simpler models can help reveal which variables have a causal relationship with the outcome. However, I argue that causality can be investigated without the use of single models, whether or not they are simple. Interpretability is useful in its own right, and I think Breiman knew that too. Technically, my modern perspective does not belong to either of Breiman's Two Cultures, but shares the goals of both of them - causality, simplicity, accuracy - and shows that these goals can be accomplished in other ways, without the limitations Breiman was concerned about.

Related papers

• "Patriarchy Hurts Men Too." Does Your Model Agree? A Discussion on Fairness Assumptions [3.706222947143855]
  In the context of group fairness, this approach often obscures implicit assumptions about how bias is introduced into the data. We are assuming that the biasing process is a monotonic function of the fair scores, dependent solely on the sensitive attribute. Either the behavior of the biasing process is more complex than mere monotonicity, which means we need to identify and reject our implicit assumptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-01T07:06:30Z)
• Amazing Things Come From Having Many Good Models [15.832860655980918]
  The Rashomon Effect describes the phenomenon that there exist many equally good predictive models for the same dataset. This perspective piece proposes reshaping the way we think about machine learning. Our goal is to illustrate how the Rashomon Effect can have a massive impact on the use of machine learning for complex problems in society.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-05T20:14:36Z)
• Neural Pseudo-Label Optimism for the Bank Loan Problem [78.66533961716728]
  We study a class of classification problems best exemplified by the emphbank loan problem. In the case of linear models, this issue can be addressed by adding optimism directly into the model predictions. We present Pseudo-Label Optimism (PLOT), a conceptually and computationally simple method for this setting applicable to Deep Neural Networks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-03T22:46:31Z)
• A Holistic Approach to Interpretability in Financial Lending: Models, Visualizations, and Summary-Explanations [25.05825112699133]
  In a future world without such secrecy, what decision support tools would one want to use for justified lending decisions? We propose a framework for such decisions, including a globally interpretable machine learning model, an interactive visualization of it, and several types of summaries and explanations for any given decision. Our framework earned the FICO recognition award for the Explainable Machine Learning Challenge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-04T17:05:25Z)
• Revisiting Rashomon: A Comment on "The Two Cultures" [95.81740983484471]
  Breiman dubbed the "Rashomon Effect", describing the situation in which there are many models that satisfy predictive accuracy criteria equally well, but process information in substantially different ways. This phenomenon can make it difficult to draw conclusions or automate decisions based on a model fit to data. I make connections to recent work in the Machine Learning literature that explore the implications of this issue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-05T20:51:58Z)
• Contrastive Explanations for Model Interpretability [77.92370750072831]
  We propose a methodology to produce contrastive explanations for classification models. Our method is based on projecting model representation to a latent space. Our findings shed light on the ability of label-contrastive explanations to provide a more accurate and finer-grained interpretability of a model's decision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-02T00:36:45Z)
• Bridging Breiman's Brook: From Algorithmic Modeling to Statistical Learning [6.837936479339647]
  In 2001, Leo Breiman wrote of a divide between "data modeling" and "algorithmic modeling" cultures. Twenty years later this division feels far more ephemeral, both in terms of assigning individuals to camps, and in terms of intellectual boundaries. We argue that this is largely due to the "data modelers" incorporating algorithmic methods into their toolbox.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-23T03:38:41Z)
• Bayesian Inference Forgetting [82.6681466124663]
  The right to be forgotten has been legislated in many countries but the enforcement in machine learning would cause unbearable costs. This paper proposes a it Bayesian inference forgetting (BIF) framework to realize the right to be forgotten in Bayesian inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-16T09:52:51Z)
• The Struggles of Feature-Based Explanations: Shapley Values vs. Minimal Sufficient Subsets [61.66584140190247]
  We show that feature-based explanations pose problems even for explaining trivial models. We show that two popular classes of explainers, Shapley explainers and minimal sufficient subsets explainers, target fundamentally different types of ground-truth explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-23T09:45:23Z)
• Non-Boolean Hidden Variables model reproduces Quantum Mechanics' predictions for Bell's experiment [91.3755431537592]
  Theory aimed to violate Bell's inequalities must start by giving up Boolean logic. "Hard" problem is to predict the time values when single particles are detected. "Soft" problem is to explain the violation of Bell's inequalities within (non-Boolean) Local Realism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-20T21:46:35Z)

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.