Perceptions of the Fairness Impacts of Multiplicity in Machine Learning
Anna P. Meyer, Yea-Seul Kim, Loris D'Antoni, Aws Albarghouthi
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) is increasingly used in high-stakes settings, yet multiplicity – the existence of multiple good models – means that some predictions are essentially arbitrary. ML researchers and philosophers posit that multiplicity poses a fairness risk, but no studies have investigated whether stakeholders agree. In this work, we conduct a survey to see how multiplicity impacts lay stakeholders’ – i.e., decision subjects’ – perceptions of ML fairness, and which approaches to address multiplicity they prefer. We investigate how these perceptions are modulated by task characteristics (e.g., stakes and uncertainty). Survey respondents think that multiplicity threatens the fairness of model outcomes, but not the appropriateness of using the model, even though existing work suggests the opposite. Participants are strongly against resolving multiplicity by using a single model (effectively ignoring multiplicity) or by randomizing the outcomes. Our results indicate that model developers should be intentional about dealing with multiplicity in order to maintain fairness.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Cited by top-tier papers4
- ElliCE: Efficient and Provably Robust Algorithmic Recourse via the Rashomon SetsBohdan Turbal, Iryna Voitsitska, Lesia SemenovaNeurIPS 2025 · 6 citations
- Disability-First AI Dataset Annotation: Co-designing Stuttered Speech Annotation Guidelines with People Who StutterXinru Tang, Jingjin Li, Shaomei WuCHI 2026 · 3 citations
- DIVERSE: Disagreement-Inducing Vector Evolution for Rashomon Set ExplorationGilles Eerlings, Brent Zoomers, Jori Liesenborgs, Gustavo Alberto Rovelo Ruiz et al.ICLR 2026 · 2 citations
- The Double-Edged Nature of the Rashomon Set for Trustworthy Machine LearningEthan Hsu, Harry Chen, Chudi Zhong, Lesia SemenovaICML 2026 · 1 citation
Builds on11
- What is AI Literacy? Competencies and Design ConsiderationsDuri Long, Brian MagerkoCHI 2020 · 2,947 citations
- An Aligned Rank Transform Procedure for Multifactor Contrast TestsLisa A. Elkin, Matthew Kay, James J. Higgins, Jacob O. WobbrockUIST 2021 · 671 citations
- Factors Influencing Perceived Fairness in Algorithmic Decision-Making: Algorithm Outcomes, Development Procedures, and Individual DifferencesRuotong Wang, F. Maxwell Harper, Haiyi ZhuCHI 2020 · 209 citations
- Predictive Multiplicity in ClassificationCharles T. Marx, Flávio P. Calmon, Berk UstunICML 2020 · 197 citations
- Who Is Included in Human Perceptions of AI?: Trust and Perceived Fairness around Healthcare AI and Cultural MistrustMin Kyung Lee, Katherine RichCHI 2021 · 135 citations
Related papers
- Individual Arbitrariness and Group FairnessCarol Xuan Long, Hsiang Hsu, Wael Alghamdi, Flávio P. CalmonNeurIPS 2023 · 16 citations
- Predictive Multiplicity in Probabilistic ClassificationJamelle Watson-Daniels, David C. Parkes, Berk UstunAAAI 2023 · 58 citations
- Monoculture or Multiplicity: Which Is It?Mila Gorecki, Moritz HardtNeurIPS 2025 · 6 citations
- My Model is Unfair, Do People Even Care? Visual Design Affects Trust and Perceived Bias in Machine LearningAimen Gaba, Zhanna Kaufman, Jason Cheung, Marie Shvakel et al.IEEE VIS 2023 · 20 citations
- Rashomon Capacity: A Metric for Predictive Multiplicity in ClassificationHsiang Hsu, Flávio P. CalmonNeurIPS 2022 · 65 citations
