Balancing methods increase predictive multiplicity on imbalanced datasets, while filtering effects are inconsistent and largely non-significant in the authors' own tests.
The Cost of Arbitrariness for Individuals: Examining the Legal and Technical Challenges of Model Multiplicity
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
Model multiplicity, the phenomenon where multiple models achieve similar performance despite different underlying learned functions, introduces arbitrariness in model selection. While this arbitrariness may seem inconsequential in expectation, its impact on individuals can be severe. This paper explores various individual concerns stemming from multiplicity, including the effects of arbitrariness beyond final predictions, disparate arbitrariness for individuals belonging to protected groups, and the challenges associated with the arbitrariness of a single algorithmic system creating a monopoly across various contexts. It provides both an empirical examination of these concerns and a comprehensive analysis from the legal standpoint, addressing how these issues are perceived in the anti-discrimination law in Canada. We conclude the discussion with technical challenges in the current landscape of model multiplicity to meet legal requirements and the legal gap between current law and the implications of arbitrariness in model selection, highlighting relevant future research directions for both disciplines.
citation-role summary
citation-polarity summary
fields
stat.ML 1years
2024 1verdicts
REJECT 1roles
background 1polarities
background 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Investigating the Impact of Balancing, Filtering, and Complexity on Predictive Multiplicity: A Data-Centric Perspective
Balancing methods increase predictive multiplicity on imbalanced datasets, while filtering effects are inconsistent and largely non-significant in the authors' own tests.