REVIEW 1 cited by
Quantifying Prediction Consistency Under Fine-Tuning Multiplicity in Tabular LLMs
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Fine-tuning LLMs on tabular classification tasks can lead to the phenomenon of fine-tuning multiplicity where equally well-performing models make conflicting predictions on the same input. Fine-tuning multiplicity can arise due to variations in the training process, e.g., seed, weight initialization, minor changes to training data, etc., raising concerns about the reliability of Tabular LLMs in high-stakes applications such as finance, hiring, education, healthcare. Our work formalizes this unique challenge of fine-tuning multiplicity in Tabular LLMs and proposes a novel measure to quantify the consistency of individual predictions without expensive model retraining. Our measure quantifies a prediction's consistency by analyzing (sampling) the model's local behavior around that input in the embedding space. Interestingly, we show that sampling in the local neighborhood can be leveraged to provide probabilistic guarantees on prediction consistency under a broad class of fine-tuned models, i.e., inputs with sufficiently high local stability (as defined by our measure) also remain consistent across several fine-tuned models with high probability. We perform experiments on multiple real-world datasets to show that our local stability measure preemptively captures consistency under actual multiplicity across several fine-tuned models, outperforming competing measures.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Argumentative Ensembling for Robust Recourse under Model Multiplicity
A bipolar-argumentation framework jointly selects models and counterfactuals so that returned counterfactuals are valid on all selected models, at the cost of majority voting.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.