MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406882769 · doi:10.1609/aies.v7i2.31896

Model Multiplicity for Responsible AI

2025· article· en· W4406882769 on OpenAlexaff
Prakhar Ganesh

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiplicity (mathematics)Computer scienceMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine learning has experienced a remarkable rise, with highly sophisticated over-parameterized models leading the way. Consequently, these cutting-edge models find application across diverse domains. Their increasing deployment has sparked concerns about their real-world impact, studied under the umbrella of responsible AI. A crucial aspect of building responsible AI models is the idea of model multiplicity. If managed well, model multiplicity gives us the freedom to prioritize several metrics, including those associated with responsible AI, and select the best models to minimize harm. However, the existence of multiplicity also marks the unavoidable presence of arbitrariness in model selection that can impact individual-level decisions, necessitating a broader discussion on the role and expectations of AI decision makers in our society.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and SocietySame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207