Negative Ontology of True Target for Machine Learning: Towards Evaluation and Learning under Democratic Supervision

In many real-world machine learning (ML) applications, the true target cannot be precisely defined due to ambiguity or subjectivity information. To address this challenge, under the assumption that the true target for a given ML task is not assumed to exist objectively in the real world, the EL-MIATTs (Evaluation and Learning with Multiple Inaccurate True Targets) framework has been proposed. Bridging theory and practice in implementing EL-MIATTs, in this paper, we develop two complementary mechanisms: LAF (Logical Assessment Formula)-based evaluation algorithms and UTTL (Undefinable True Target Learning)-based learning strategies with MIATTs, which together enable logically coherent and practically feasible modeling under uncertain supervision. We first analyze task-specific MIATTs, examining how their coverage and diversity determine their structural property and influence downstream evaluation and learning. Based on this understanding, we formulate LAF-grounded evaluation algorithms that operate either on original MIATTs or on ternary targets synthesized from them, balancing interpretability, soundness, and completeness. For model training, we introduce UTTL-grounded learning strategies using Dice and cross-entropy loss functions, comparing per-target and aggregated optimization schemes. We also discuss how the integration of LAF and UTTL bridges the gap between logical semantics and statistical optimization. Together, these components provide a coherent pathway for implementing EL-MIATTs, offering a principled foundation for developing ML systems in scenarios where the notion of "ground truth" is inherently uncertain. An application of this work's results is presented as part of the study available at https://www.qeios.com/read/EZWLSN.

Predictive machine learning (ML) models are increasingly used to aid human decision-makers across various high-risk domains such as healthcare and criminal justice. There is a growing recognition of the need to evaluate the causal impact of deploying these systems on downstream outcomes, such as patient survival or crime recidivism. Randomized control trials (RCTs) can provide high-quality evidence on the impact of a deployed model, but they run into a challenge: it is often infeasible to run repeated trials when models are updated or retrained to improve predictive performance. In this work, we present a partial-identification approach to using prior RCT data to construct bounds on the causal effect of a new model. The core innovation in our approach is to leverage assumptions relating fine-grained predictive accuracy to downstream outcomes. We do so via two monotonicity assumptions: first, on individual-level `counterfactual correctness' (all else being equal, a correct prediction leads to non-inferior outcomes); and second, on the relation between subgroup predictive performance and outcomes, interpretable as an assumption regarding trust in model outputs. We demonstrate our method with a simulation study, illustrating how incorporating this information can lead to more informative bounds compared to prior work.

Machine learning engineering (MLE) agents promise to automate end-to-end ML pipeline development from raw data and natural language instructions, potentially making ML accessible to non-technical domain experts. However, in sensitive and regulated domains, this abstraction creates a responsibility gap: end-users may lack visibility into design choices that affect correctness, robustness, fairness, and regulatory compliance. We argue that existing benchmarks are insufficient to assess whether MLE agents can be safely applied in such settings. We propose desiderata for a responsibility-centered evaluation framework and conduct an exploratory study on melanoma classification, focusing on fairness across skin tones as a responsibility constraint. When evaluating two recent MLE agents, we find that agent-generated pipelines show high variance and consistently underperform manually designed baselines in both predictive quality and fairness, despite fairness-oriented prompts. These preliminary results suggest that further research is needed towards redesigning MLE agents to allow humans to guide the search process and reliably assess the compliance and quality of the generated ML pipelines.