Demystifying Disagreement-on-the-Line in High Dimensions
Evaluating the performance of machine learning models under distribution shift is challenging, especially when we only have unlabeled data from the shifted (target) domain, along with labeled data from the original (source) domain. Recent work suggests that the notion of disagreement, the degree to which two models trained with different randomness differ on the same input, is a key to tackle this problem. Experimentally, disagreement and prediction error have been shown to be strongly connected, which has been used to estimate model performance. Experiments have led to the discovery of the disagreement-on-the-line phenomenon, whereby the classification error under the target domain is often a linear function of the classification error under the source domain; and whenever this property holds, disagreement under the source and target domain follow the same linear relation. In this work, we develop a theoretical foundation for analyzing disagreement in high-dimensional random features regression; and study under what conditions the disagreement-on-the-line phenomenon occurs in our setting. Experiments on CIFAR-10-C, Tiny ImageNet-C, and Camelyon17 are consistent with our theory and support the universality of the theoretical findings.
Code (1)
Tasks
Vocal Bursts Intensity PredictionSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Dimensions of Disagreement: Unpacking Divergence and Misalignment in Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence
The increasing prevalence of artificial agents creates a correspondingly increasing need to manage disagreements between humans and artificial agents, as well as between artificial agents themselves. Considering this lar…
The geometry of online conversations and the causal antecedents of conflictual discourse
This article investigates the causal antecedents of conflictual language and the geometry of interaction in online threaded conversations related to climate change. We employ three annotation dimensions, inferred through…
PluriHarms: Benchmarking the Full Spectrum of Human Judgments on AI Harm
Current AI safety frameworks, which often treat harmfulness as binary, lack the flexibility to handle borderline cases where humans meaningfully disagree. To build more pluralistic systems, it is essential to move beyond…
MSA at BEA 2025 Shared Task: Disagreement-Aware Instruction Tuning for Multi-Dimensional Evaluation of LLMs as Math Tutors
We present MSA-MathEval, our submission to the BEA 2025 Shared Task on evaluating AI tutor responses across four instructional dimensions: Mistake Identification, Mistake Location, Providing Guidance, and Actionability. …
Language ModelingLanguage ModellingMathAgreement and Disagreement: Comparison of Points of View in the Political Domain
The automated comparison of points of view between two politicians is a very challenging task, due not only to the lack of annotated resources, but also to the different dimensions participating to the definition of agre…
PositionSentiment Analysis