Mitigating the Multiplicity Burden: The Role of Calibration in Reducing Predictive Multiplicity of Classifiers

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 diverge 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 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.

Multicalibration extends classical calibration by requiring predictions to be unbiased over a rich collection of functions, encompassing both prediction slices and subpopulations. It has emerged as a powerful framework for fairness, robustness, and reliable prediction, yet the theoretical understanding of multicalibration boosting (MCBoost) remains fragmented and often relies on restrictive assumptions. In this work, we develop a unified and refined perspective on MCBoost that subsumes existing variants, including multiaccuracy, BatchGCP, and BatchMVP. We uncover several phenomena that provide new insights into its practical behavior: even highly accurate and flexible predictors can remain substantially miscalibrated; enforcing multicalibration introduces a calibration-risk trade-off; and early stopping plays a central role in controlling this trade-off. On the theoretical side, we establish a general framework for MCBoost under weaker and more realistic conditions. We show that the boosting iterates converge to a Bregman projection of the population-optimal predictor onto the cumulative span generated by the audit class, thereby explicitly characterizing the function space on which multicalibration is achieved. We further derive convergence rates under different smoothness assumptions, finite-sample guarantees, and principled stopping rules that ensure multicalibration at termination. Finally, we extend the theory of universal adaptability under covariate shift, providing more general transfer guarantees and clarifying when multicalibrated predictors generalize across domains. These results provide a more complete theoretical foundation and practical guidance for multicalibration boosting, positioning it as both a unifying framework and a reliable post-processing approach for modern predictive models.

Many prediction tasks can admit multiple models that can perform almost equally well. This phenomenon can undermine interpretability and safety when competing models assign conflicting predictions to individuals. In this work, we study how arbitrariness can arise in probabilistic classification tasks as a result of an effect that we call observational multiplicity. We discuss how this effect arises in a broad class of practical applications where we learn a classifier to predict probabilities $p_i \in [0,1]$ but are given a dataset of observations $y_i \in \{0,1\}$. We propose to evaluate the arbitrariness of individual probability predictions through the lens of regret. We introduce a measure of regret for probabilistic classification tasks, which measures how the predictions of a model could change as a result of different training labels. We present a general-purpose method to estimate the regret in a probabilistic classification task. We use our measure to show that regret is often higher for certain groups in the dataset and discuss potential applications of regret. We demonstrate how estimating regret can be used to promote safety in real-world applications by abstention and data collection.