mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Ecosystem-level Analysis of Deployed Machine Learning Reveals Homogeneous Outcomes

arXiv 2307.05862 ↗First posted 12 Jul 2023cs.LG cs.AI cs.CYcited by 10

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Machine learning is traditionally studied at the model level: researchers measure and improve the accuracy, robustness, bias, efficiency, and other dimensions of specific models. In practice, the societal impact of machine learning is determined by the surrounding context of machine learning deployments. To capture this, we introduce ecosystem-level analysis: rather than analyzing a single model, we consider the collection of models that are deployed in a given context. For example, ecosystem-level analysis in hiring recognizes that a job candidate's outcomes are not only determined by a single hiring algorithm or firm but instead by the collective decisions of all the firms they applied to. Across three modalities (text, images, speech) and 11 datasets, we establish a clear trend: deployed machine learning is prone to systemic failure, meaning some users are exclusively misclassified by all models available. Even when individual models improve at the population level over time, we find these improvements rarely reduce the prevalence of systemic failure. Instead, the benefits of these improvements predominantly accrue to individuals who are already correctly classified by other models. In light of these trends, we consider medical imaging for dermatology where the costs of systemic failure are especially high. While traditional analyses reveal racial performance disparities for both models and humans, ecosystem-level analysis reveals new forms of racial disparity in model predictions that do not present in human predictions. These examples demonstrate ecosystem-level analysis has unique strengths for characterizing the societal impact of machine learning.

Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Jul 2023.

Builds on

17 of 46 references.

References · 17

  1. 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,364
  2. 2021On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Modelscited by 4,033
  3. 2020WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shiftscited by 1,375
  4. 2017AffectNet: A Database for Facial Expression, Valence, and Arousal Computing in the Wildcited by 492
  5. 2020An Investigation of Why Overparameterization Exacerbates Spurious Correlationscited by 310
  6. 2019Speech Model Pre-training for End-to-End Spoken Language Understandingcited by 193
  7. 2016Training Deep Networks for Facial Expression Recognition with Crowd-Sourced Label Distributioncited by 158
  8. 2021Disparities in Dermatology AI: Assessments Using Diverse Clinical Imagescited by 134
  9. 2021Algorithmic Monoculture and Social Welfarecited by 100
  10. 2022Picking on the Same Person: Does Algorithmic Monoculture lead to Outcome Homogenization?cited by 91
  11. 2016From Facial Expression Recognition to Interpersonal Relation Predictioncited by 53
  12. 2023Ecosystem Graphs: The Social Footprint of Foundation Modelscited by 32
5 more
  1. 2020Manipulation-Proof Machine Learningcited by 20
  2. 2021Did the Model Change? Efficiently Assessing Machine Learning API Shiftscited by 13
  3. 2022HAPI: A Large-scale Longitudinal Dataset of Commercial ML API Predictionscited by 6
  4. 2022Should attention be all we need? The epistemic and ethical implications of unification in machine learningcited by 4
  5. 2022The Right to be an Exception to a Data-Driven Rulecited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 7.

10 papers.