Reconciling Model Multiplicity for Downstream Decision Making
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Explains the challenges of reconciling multiple models for downstream decision-making
- Introduces a framework to address model multiplicity and its implications
- Discusses the importance of understanding and accounting for model uncertainty in real-world applications
Plain English Explanation
When working with complex data, researchers often develop multiple models to capture different aspects of the problem. However, having multiple models can create challenges when it comes to making decisions based on the results. The paper explores a framework for addressing these challenges, which are known as "model multiplicity."
The key idea is that rather than relying on a single "best" model, it's important to consider the uncertainty and variability across multiple models. This helps ensure that decisions are robust and account for the inherent complexity of the problem. The paper introduces a systematic approach for evaluating and reconciling multiple models, which can be particularly valuable in areas like medical diagnosis or scientific research, where the consequences of decisions can be significant.
By considering the uncertainty across multiple models, the framework helps decision-makers better understand the limitations and strengths of each model, leading to more informed and robust decision-making. This approach can be especially important in high-stakes scenarios where the consequences of decisions can have a significant impact on individuals or society.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents a framework for reconciling "model multiplicity," which arises when multiple models are developed to capture different aspects of a complex problem. The authors emphasize the importance of considering the uncertainty and variability across these models, rather than relying on a single "best" model.
The proposed approach involves a systematic evaluation of the models, including their predictive performance, calibration, and sensitivity to different inputs. By understanding the strengths, weaknesses, and uncertainties associated with each model, decision-makers can make more informed and robust decisions.
The framework includes techniques for model comparison, such as Bayesian model averaging and constrained optimization, as well as methods for quantifying and communicating uncertainty. These approaches can be particularly valuable in domains where decisions have significant real-world consequences, such as medical diagnosis or scientific research.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a comprehensive framework for addressing the challenge of model multiplicity, but it's important to consider some potential limitations and areas for further research:
-
Complexity vs. Interpretability: While the proposed framework aims to capture the nuances of multiple models, it may come at the cost of reduced interpretability for decision-makers. Balancing the tradeoff between model complexity and interpretability is an ongoing challenge in the field.
-
Data Availability and Quality: The effectiveness of the framework relies heavily on the availability and quality of the data used to train and evaluate the models. In real-world scenarios, data may be incomplete, biased, or subject to other limitations, which could impact the reliability of the framework's recommendations.
-
Computational Overhead: Implementing the various techniques presented in the framework, such as Bayesian model averaging and constrained optimization, may require significant computational resources, which could limit its practical application in time-sensitive or resource-constrained environments.
-
Domain-Specific Considerations: The framework may need to be adapted or supplemented with additional techniques to address the unique challenges and requirements of different application domains, such as regulatory or ethical considerations in healthcare or financial decision-making.
Overall, the paper presents a valuable approach for addressing the challenges of model multiplicity, but further research and practical implementation may be needed to fully realize its potential and overcome the identified limitations.
Conclusion
The paper introduces a comprehensive framework for reconciling model multiplicity, which is a common challenge in complex, real-world decision-making scenarios. By emphasizing the importance of understanding and accounting for model uncertainty, the framework provides a systematic approach for evaluating and integrating multiple models to support more informed and robust decision-making.
The proposed techniques, such as Bayesian model averaging and constrained optimization, can be particularly valuable in high-stakes domains where the consequences of decisions can have a significant impact on individuals or society. While the framework may need to be adapted to address specific domain-related considerations, it represents an important step towards addressing the inherent complexity of real-world problems and ensuring that decisions are based on a comprehensive understanding of the available data and models.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Reconciling Model Multiplicity for Downstream Decision Making
Ally Yalei Du, Dung Daniel Ngo, Zhiwei Steven Wu
We consider the problem of model multiplicity in downstream decision-making, a setting where two predictive models of equivalent accuracy cannot agree on the best-response action for a downstream loss function. We show that even when the two predictive models approximately agree on their individual predictions almost everywhere, it is still possible for their induced best-response actions to differ on a substantial portion of the population. We address this issue by proposing a framework that calibrates the predictive models with regard to both the downstream decision-making problem and the individual probability prediction. Specifically, leveraging tools from multi-calibration, we provide an algorithm that, at each time-step, first reconciles the differences in individual probability prediction, then calibrates the updated models such that they are indistinguishable from the true probability distribution to the decision-maker. We extend our results to the setting where one does not have direct access to the true probability distribution and instead relies on a set of i.i.d data to be the empirical distribution. Finally, we provide a set of experiments to empirically evaluate our methods: compared to existing work, our proposed algorithm creates a pair of predictive models with both improved downstream decision-making losses and agrees on their best-response actions almost everywhere.
Read more5/31/2024
🎲
0
Posterior Probability Matters: Doubly-Adaptive Calibration for Neural Predictions in Online Advertising
Penghui Wei, Weimin Zhang, Ruijie Hou, Jinquan Liu, Shaoguo Liu, Liang Wang, Bo Zheng
Predicting user response probabilities is vital for ad ranking and bidding. We hope that predictive models can produce accurate probabilistic predictions that reflect true likelihoods. Calibration techniques aim to post-process model predictions to posterior probabilities. Field-level calibration -- which performs calibration w.r.t. to a specific field value -- is fine-grained and more practical. In this paper we propose a doubly-adaptive approach AdaCalib. It learns an isotonic function family to calibrate model predictions with the guidance of posterior statistics, and field-adaptive mechanisms are designed to ensure that the posterior is appropriate for the field value to be calibrated. Experiments verify that AdaCalib achieves significant improvement on calibration performance. It has been deployed online and beats previous approach.
Read more5/28/2024
📈
0
Cross-model Fairness: Empirical Study of Fairness and Ethics Under Model Multiplicity
Kacper Sokol, Meelis Kull, Jeffrey Chan, Flora Salim
While data-driven predictive models are a strictly technological construct, they may operate within a social context in which benign engineering choices entail implicit, indirect and unexpected real-life consequences. Fairness of such systems -- pertaining both to individuals and groups -- is one relevant consideration in this space; algorithms can discriminate people across various protected characteristics regardless of whether these properties are included in the data or discernible through proxy variables. To date, this notion has predominantly been studied for a fixed model, often under different classification thresholds, striving to identify and eradicate undesirable, discriminative and possibly unlawful aspects of its operation. Here, we backtrack on this fixed model assumption to propose and explore a novel definition of cross-model fairness where individuals can be harmed when one predictor is chosen ad hoc from a group of equally well performing models, i.e., in view of utility-based model multiplicity. Since a person may be classified differently across models that are otherwise considered equivalent, this individual could argue for a predictor granting them the most favourable outcome, employing which may have adverse effects on other people. We introduce this scenario with a two-dimensional example and linear classification; then, we present a comprehensive empirical study based on real-life predictive models and data sets that are popular with the algorithmic fairness community; finally, we investigate analytical properties of cross-model fairness and its ramifications in a broader context. Our findings suggest that such unfairness can be readily found in real life and it may be difficult to mitigate by technical means alone as doing so is likely to degrade predictive performance.
Read more7/11/2024
0
Quantifying Prediction Consistency Under Model Multiplicity in Tabular LLMs
Faisal Hamman, Pasan Dissanayake, Saumitra Mishra, Freddy Lecue, Sanghamitra Dutta
Fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) on limited tabular data for classification tasks can lead to textit{fine-tuning multiplicity}, where equally well-performing models make conflicting predictions on the same inputs due to variations in the training process (i.e., seed, random weight initialization, retraining on additional or deleted samples). This raises critical concerns about the robustness and reliability of Tabular LLMs, particularly when deployed for high-stakes decision-making, such as finance, hiring, education, healthcare, etc. This work formalizes the challenge of fine-tuning multiplicity in Tabular LLMs and proposes a novel metric to quantify the robustness of individual predictions without expensive model retraining. Our metric quantifies a prediction's stability by analyzing (sampling) the model's local behavior around the input in the embedding space. Interestingly, we show that sampling in the local neighborhood can be leveraged to provide probabilistic robustness guarantees against a broad class of fine-tuned models. By leveraging Bernstein's Inequality, we show that predictions with sufficiently high robustness (as defined by our measure) will remain consistent with high probability. We also provide empirical evaluation on real-world datasets to support our theoretical results. Our work highlights the importance of addressing fine-tuning instabilities to enable trustworthy deployment of LLMs in high-stakes and safety-critical applications.
Read more7/8/2024