Resolving Predictive Multiplicity for the Rashomon Set

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.09071v1
• Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 02:02:54 GMT
• Title: Resolving Predictive Multiplicity for the Rashomon Set
• Abstract summary: A Rashomon set'' of models achieve similar accuracy but diverges in their individual predictions.<n>We propose three approaches to reduce inconsistency among predictions for the members of the Rashomon set.
• Score: 25.615527704500987
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The existence of multiple, equally accurate models for a given predictive task leads to predictive multiplicity, where a ``Rashomon set'' of models achieve similar accuracy but diverges in their individual predictions. This inconsistency undermines trust in high-stakes applications where we want consistent predictions. We propose three approaches to reduce inconsistency among predictions for the members of the Rashomon set. The first approach is \textbf{outlier correction}. An outlier has a label that none of the good models are capable of predicting correctly. Outliers can cause the Rashomon set to have high variance predictions in a local area, so fixing them can lower variance. Our second approach is local patching. In a local region around a test point, models may disagree with each other because some of them are biased. We can detect and fix such biases using a validation set, which also reduces multiplicity. Our third approach is pairwise reconciliation, where we find pairs of models that disagree on a region around the test point. We modify predictions that disagree, making them less biased. These three approaches can be used together or separately, and they each have distinct advantages. The reconciled predictions can then be distilled into a single interpretable model for real-world deployment. In experiments across multiple datasets, our methods reduce disagreement metrics while maintaining competitive accuracy.

Related papers

• Model Multiplicity and Predictive Arbitrariness in Recidivism Risk Assessment [1.7465202628859542]
  We study a machine learning-based system for recidivism risk assessment that has been in use for over 15 years.<n>We learn interpretable models that improve predictive performance, reduce error-rate disparities between groups, and ensure that rehabilitative progress lowers risk scores.<n>Our experiments indicate that the existence of many similarly accurate models with comparable error-rate disparities does not necessarily translate into severe predictive multiplicity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T12:53:54Z)
• Reconciling Model Multiplicity for Downstream Decision Making [24.335927243672952]
  We show that even when the two predictive models approximately agree on their individual predictions almost everywhere, it is still possible for their induced best-response actions to differ on a substantial portion of the population. We propose a framework that calibrates the predictive models with regard to both the downstream decision-making problem and the individual probability prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T03:36:46Z)
• Conformal online model aggregation [36.191356601153146]
  Conformal prediction equips machine learning models with a reasonable notion of uncertainty quantification without making strong distributional assumptions.<n>We propose a wrapper that takes in several conformal prediction sets and outputs a single adaptively-combined prediction set.<n>Our method, called conformal online model aggregation (COMA), is based on combining the prediction sets from several algorithms by weighted voting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-22T15:40:06Z)
• Regression Trees for Fast and Adaptive Prediction Intervals [2.6763498831034043]
  We present a family of methods to calibrate prediction intervals for regression problems with local coverage guarantees. We create a partition by training regression trees and Random Forests on conformity scores. Our proposal is versatile, as it applies to various conformity scores and prediction settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-12T01:17:09Z)
• Source-Free Unsupervised Domain Adaptation with Hypothesis Consolidation of Prediction Rationale [53.152460508207184]
  Source-Free Unsupervised Domain Adaptation (SFUDA) is a challenging task where a model needs to be adapted to a new domain without access to target domain labels or source domain data. This paper proposes a novel approach that considers multiple prediction hypotheses for each sample and investigates the rationale behind each hypothesis. To achieve the optimal performance, we propose a three-step adaptation process: model pre-adaptation, hypothesis consolidation, and semi-supervised learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T05:53:22Z)
• Confidence-Based Model Selection: When to Take Shortcuts for Subpopulation Shifts [119.22672589020394]
  We propose COnfidence-baSed MOdel Selection (CosMoS), where model confidence can effectively guide model selection. We evaluate CosMoS on four datasets with spurious correlations, each with multiple test sets with varying levels of data distribution shift.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-19T18:48:15Z)
• Proximity-Informed Calibration for Deep Neural Networks [49.330703634912915]
  ProCal is a plug-and-play algorithm with a theoretical guarantee to adjust sample confidence based on proximity. We show that ProCal is effective in addressing proximity bias and improving calibration on balanced, long-tail, and distribution-shift settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-07T16:40:51Z)
• 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)
• Thought Flow Nets: From Single Predictions to Trains of Model Thought [39.619001911390804]
  When humans solve complex problems, they rarely come up with a decision right-away. Instead, they start with an intuitive decision reflecting upon it, spot mistakes, resolve contradictions and jump between different hypotheses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-26T13:56:37Z)
• Predicting with Confidence on Unseen Distributions [90.68414180153897]
  We connect domain adaptation and predictive uncertainty literature to predict model accuracy on challenging unseen distributions. We find that the difference of confidences (DoC) of a classifier's predictions successfully estimates the classifier's performance change over a variety of shifts. We specifically investigate the distinction between synthetic and natural distribution shifts and observe that despite its simplicity DoC consistently outperforms other quantifications of distributional difference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-07T15:50:18Z)
• A hybrid ensemble method with negative correlation learning for regression [2.8484009470171943]
  This study automatically selects and weights sub-models from a heterogeneous model pool. It solves an optimization problem using an interior-point filtering linear-search algorithm. The value of this study lies in its ease of use and effectiveness, allowing the hybrid ensemble to embrace diversity and accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-06T06:45:14Z)
• Individual Calibration with Randomized Forecasting [116.2086707626651]
  We show that calibration for individual samples is possible in the regression setup if the predictions are randomized. We design a training objective to enforce individual calibration and use it to train randomized regression functions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-18T05:53:10Z)
• Ambiguity in Sequential Data: Predicting Uncertain Futures with Recurrent Models [110.82452096672182]
  We propose an extension of the Multiple Hypothesis Prediction (MHP) model to handle ambiguous predictions with sequential data. We also introduce a novel metric for ambiguous problems, which is better suited to account for uncertainties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-10T09:15:42Z)

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.