REVIEW 1 cited by
The Cost of Arbitrariness for Individuals: Examining the Legal and Technical Challenges of Model Multiplicity
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
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
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.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.