Reconciling Predictive Multiplicity in Practice
Many machine learning applications predict individual probabilities, such as the likelihood that a person develops a particular illness. Since these probabilities are unknown, a key question is how to address situations in which different models trained on the same dataset produce varying predictions for certain individuals. This issue is exemplified by the model multiplicity (MM) phenomenon, where a set of comparable models yield inconsistent predictions. Roth, Tolbert, and Weinstein recently introduced a reconciliation procedure, the Reconcile algorithm, to address this problem. Given two disagreeing models, the algorithm leverages their disagreement to falsify and improve at least one of the models. In this paper, we empirically analyze the Reconcile algorithm using five widely-used fairness datasets: COMPAS, Communities and Crime, Adult, Statlog (German Credit Data), and the ACS Dataset. We examine how Reconcile fits within the model multiplicity literature and compare it to existing MM solutions, demonstrating its effectiveness. We also discuss potential improvements to the Reconcile algorithm theoretically and practically. Finally, we extend the Reconcile algorithm to the setting of causal inference, given that different competing estimators can again disagree on specific causal average treatment effect (CATE) values. We present the first extension of the Reconcile algorithm in causal inference, analyze its theoretical properties, and conduct empirical tests. Our results confirm the practical effectiveness of Reconcile and its applicability across various domains.
Code (1)
Tasks
Causal InferenceFairnessMethods 이 논문이 사용한 방법론
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Rashomon Capacity: A Metric for Predictive Multiplicity in Classification
Predictive multiplicity occurs when classification models with statistically indistinguishable performances assign conflicting predictions to individual samples. When used for decision-making in applications of consequen…
ClassificationDecision MakingUsing predictive multiplicity to measure individual performance within the AI Act
When building AI systems for decision support, one often encounters the phenomenon of predictive multiplicity: a single best model does not exist; instead, one can construct many models with similar overall accuracy that…
On Arbitrary Predictions from Equally Valid Models
Model multiplicity refers to the existence of multiple machine learning models that describe the data equally well but may produce different predictions on individual samples. In medicine, these models can admit conflict…
Reconciling Model Multiplicity for Downstream Decision Making
We consider the problem of model multiplicity in downstream decision-making, a setting where two predictive models of equivalent accuracy cannot agree on the best-response action for a downstream loss function. We show t…
Decision MakingmodelModel Multiplicity and Predictive Arbitrariness in Recidivism Risk Assessment
Prediction tasks over individual futures, which are inherently noisy, often admit multiple similarly accurate models. When these models produce different predictions for the same individual, they raise concerns of arbitr…