Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Practical Attribution Guidance for Rashomon Sets

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

arxiv 2407.18482 v1 pith:6CNCIK2T submitted 2024-07-26 cs.LG

classification cs.LG
keywords practicalrashomonfundamentalmethodssamplingattributionaxiomsbeen
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

Different prediction models might perform equally well (Rashomon set) in the same task, but offer conflicting interpretations and conclusions about the data. The Rashomon effect in the context of Explainable AI (XAI) has been recognized as a critical factor. Although the Rashomon set has been introduced and studied in various contexts, its practical application is at its infancy stage and lacks adequate guidance and evaluation. We study the problem of the Rashomon set sampling from a practical viewpoint and identify two fundamental axioms - generalizability and implementation sparsity that exploring methods ought to satisfy in practical usage. These two axioms are not satisfied by most known attribution methods, which we consider to be a fundamental weakness. We use the norms to guide the design of an $\epsilon$-subgradient-based sampling method. We apply this method to a fundamental mathematical problem as a proof of concept and to a set of practical datasets to demonstrate its ability compared with existing sampling methods.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Systemizing Multiplicity: The Curious Case of Arbitrariness in Machine Learning

    cs.LG 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A systematic review of 80 papers on model multiplicity, with a new taxonomy of developer choices and a formal distinction between multiplicity, uncertainty, and variance.

Pith tools