Model Multiplicity and Predictive Arbitrariness in Recidivism Risk Assessment

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.

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 differ in their predictions for individual cases. Especially when decisions have a direct impact on humans, this can be highly unsatisfactory. For a person subject to high disagreement between models, one could as well have chosen a different model of similar overall accuracy that would have decided the person's case differently. We argue that this arbitrariness conflicts with the EU AI Act, which requires providers of high-risk AI systems to report performance not only at the dataset level but also for specific persons. The goal of this paper is to put predictive multiplicity in context with the EU AI Act's provisions on accuracy and to subsequently derive concrete suggestions on how to evaluate and report predictive multiplicity in practice. Specifically: (1) We introduce the AI Act's accuracy provisions and argue that incorporating information about predictive multiplicity could serve compliance with specific provisions for providers. (2) Based on this legally rigorous analysis, we suggest individual conflict ratios and $δ$-ambiguity as tools to quantify the disagreement between models on individual cases and to help detect individuals subject to conflicting predictions. (3) Based on computational insights, we derive easy-to-implement rules on how model providers could evaluate predictive multiplicity in practice. (4) Ultimately, we suggest that information about predictive multiplicity should be made available to deployers under the AI Act, enabling them to judge whether system outputs for specific individuals are reliable enough for their use case.

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 \emph{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 \emph{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.