Measuring consistency via ensemble margin and local prediction variability: Auditing decision systems in the presence of predictive multiplicity
Authors: Sinjini Banerjee, Tim Marrinan, Anand D. Sarwate
Organizations: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Rutgers University · Pacific Northwest National Lab
Abstract
The Rashomon effect is a machine learning phenomenon where equally accurate models produce different predictions for the same inputs (predictive multiplicity). Existing work primarily focuses on multiplicity within individual models, but in more complex decision systems, the impact of the Rashomon effect is less well understood. In this work, we study multiplicity from the perspective of auditing incorrect ensemble predictions, where the decision to divert an instance for human review is based on a consistency criterion that combines the ensemble margin with a measure of local prediction variability for each constituent model. With mild assumptions about stability and smoothness, we show that the consistency scores of finite ensembles converge to the corresponding consistency score of the expected model from the Rashomon set as the ensemble size and the number of samples used to measure local prediction variability increase. To demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed criterion, we evaluate the framework with respect to transformer models applied to natural language understanding tasks and parameter-efficient fine-tuning of large language models used for tabular data classification tasks. Our experiments show that ensembling models from the Rashomon set substantially reduces the risk of incorrect predictions going unchecked compared with auditing a single model, while incurring only a moderate increase in the number of diversions. Moreover, the auditing behavior of the full Rashomon set can be closely approximated by finite ensembles of relatively modest size, with the risk approaching zero for some datasets. We further demonstrate that the proposed measure exhibits stronger agreement with established predictive multiplicity metrics than existing consistency measures, providing a more reliable way to capture multiplicity in the Rashomon set.
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.
Predictive multiplicity and chaotic dynamics represent two fundamental challenges in machine learning that have evolved independently despite their conceptual connections. We bridge this gap by introducing horizon-constrained Rashomon sets, a theoretical framework that characterizes how model multiplicity evolves with prediction horizon in chaotic systems. Unlike static prediction tasks where the Rashomon set remains fixed, chaos induces exponential divergence among initially similar models, fundamentally transforming the nature of predictive equivalence. We prove that the effective Rashomon set contracts exponentially with lead time at a rate determined by the maximum Lyapunov exponent and introduce Lyapunov-weighted metrics that provide tighter bounds on predictive disagreement. Leveraging these insights, we develop decision-aligned selection algorithms that choose among near-optimal models based on downstream utility rather than forecast accuracy alone. Extensive experiments on synthetic chaotic systems (Lorenz-96, Kuramoto-Sivashinsky) and real-world applications (wind power, traffic, weather) demonstrate that our framework improves decision quality by 18-34% while maintaining competitive predictive performance. This work establishes the first rigorous connection between chaos theory and predictive multiplicity, providing principled guidance for deploying machine learning in safety-critical chaotic domains.
Machine learning models should be robust, in the sense of remaining predictively consistent under permissible variations. A model's predictions should ideally remain unchanged when it is replaced by a functionally equivalent one, or when its inputs are subject to minor, admissible perturbations. If such changes alter a prediction significantly, then the prediction is "ambiguous" with respect to the model. Models should abstain from making such ambiguous predictions and/or should flag them for human inspection, especially in high-stakes decision-making scenarios. However, in practice, such ambiguity is not easy to identify once a model is deployed. Here, the Robust Ambiguity Detection (RAD) framework is advanced for quantifying predictive ambiguity using two complementary metrics: Model-Space Consistency and Feature-Space Consistency. These two scores, the RAD Score-Pair, visualised through the RAD Plot, provide an interpretable characterisation of the sources of ambiguity and the actions a user may consider in response. RAD is evaluated on synthetic datasets with systematically controlled overlap, as well as several real-world datasets where the level of ambiguity cannot be directly inspected. Finally, we demonstrate a downstream application of RAD where samples are ranked by their RAD Pareto-Rank and the most ambiguous are abstained from prediction, achieving performance comparable to existing rejection-based approaches.