REVIEW 1 cited by
Exploring the Rashomon Set for Concept-Based Models
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
Exploring the Rashomon Set for Concept-Based Models
read the original abstract
In many machine learning problems, there may exist multiple models that achieve nearly identical predictive performance while relying on fundamentally different internal logic. However, standard training procedures produce a single model, offering no practical way to explore alternatives that may better suit downstream needs. The set of these equally accurate models is known as the Rashomon set. Exploring the Rashomon set is particularly challenging in large and complex hypothesis spaces, such as Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs), which are widely used in computer vision to make predictions through intermediate, human-understandable concepts. In this paper, we provide a method for efficiently exploring the Rashomon set of CBMs. Our framework introduces a specialized parallel adapter-based construction, combined with a checkpointing scheme and a concept diversity objective, to generate multiple equally accurate CBMs from a single training process. Empirical results show that our method finds models with better diversity than baselines while using much less memory. We further demonstrate that access to these diverse yet accurate CBMs enables trustworthy model selection, resolution of inter-class confusion, and reliable abstention in decision-making.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Position: Explainability Research Must Prioritize Foundations over Ad-hoc Methods
Explainable AI research should prioritize definitions, properties, evaluations, and actionability over new ad-hoc methods, on evidence from 617 papers and 34 practitioners.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.