Predicting Multi-View Rashomon Representation: Can We Learn Where Models Disagree?

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.

Human-model alignment is critical for trustworthy AI-assisted decision-making systems. Yet, most work evaluates model predictions against single ground-truth labels, overlooking that humans themselves often disagree on labels, a signal of genuine ambiguity. We investigate whether models struggle on the same instances that humans find difficult. We measure this on two vision datasets (FER+ and CIFAR-10H) where multiple human annotations per image capture human disagreement patterns. We evaluate eight pretrained models across three architectures (ResNet, EfficientNet, MobileNetV3) in two parts: first, whether model uncertainty (softmax confidence, entropy) correlates with human disagreement, and second, whether predictive multiplicity measures (inter-model disagreement, Jensen-Shannon divergence) do. We find that it does not: alignment is weak in both dimensions. At the discrete label level, 50.4% of CIFAR-10H images and 33.5% of FER+ images receive multiple valid classifications from humans, while the models converge on only one. These instances represent a critical failure case where humans perceive ambiguity and would request expert review, yet models decide confidently. At the continuous score level, single-model uncertainty correlates weakly with human disagreement ($ρ= 0.24--0.55$), and predictive multiplicity provides only modest improvement. Widely-used uncertainty quantification methods do not reliably identify instances humans find ambiguous. Model uncertainty should not be treated as a trustworthy signal by default for decision-making in high-stakes scenarios.

Large language models trained under diverse objectives and architectures have been shown to develop increasingly similar internal representations, an observation formalized as the Platonic Representation Hypothesis. Whether this representational convergence extends to the reasoning processes that operate over shared representations remains untested. We evaluate representational similarity across 16 language models from 8 families (1.5B to 72B parameters) on 800 reasoning problems spanning mathematics, science, commonsense, and truthfulness, stratifying by problem difficulty, computational stage, and causal relevance. Our analysis reveals three dissociations: a difficulty inversion, where models converge more on problems they collectively fail (Centered Kernel Alignment [CKA] = 0.897) than on those they solve (CKA = 0.830); a generation gap, where pre-decision representations align (CKA = 0.875) while post-decision representations diverge (CKA = 0.274); and epiphenomenal correctness, where shared information is decodable across models (66% transfer accuracy) but exerts minimal causal influence on predictions (1.5% to 5.5% flip rate across ablation protocols). These results indicate that representational convergence in language models reflects shared input processing constraints rather than shared reasoning strategies, with direct implications for ensemble design, interpretability transfer, and evaluations of model similarity. Code is available at https://github.com/Usama1002/convergence-without-understanding.