Systemizing Multiplicity: The Curious Case of Arbitrariness in Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Algorithmic modeling relies on limited information in data to extrapolate outcomes for unseen scenarios, often embedding an element of arbitrariness in its decisions. A perspective on this arbitrariness that has recently gained interest is multiplicity—the study of arbitrariness across a set of "good models", i.e., those likely to be deployed in practice. In this work, we systemize the literature on multiplicity by: (a) formalizing the terminology around model design choices and their contribution to arbitrariness, (b) expanding the definition of multiplicity to incorporate underrepresented forms beyond just predictions and explanations, (c) clarifying the distinction between multiplicity and other lenses of arbitrariness, i.e., uncertainty and variance, and (d) distilling the benefits and potential risks of multiplicity into overarching trends, situating it within the broader landscape of responsible AI. We conclude by identifying open research questions and highlighting emerging trends in this young but rapidly growing area of research.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.095 | 0.236 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.042 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".