The Impact of Stochasticity on the Rashomon Effect in Machine Learning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Neural network training is inherently stochastic, with factors such as weight initialization leading to distinct models despite comparable predictive performance. This phenomenon is commonly associated with the Rashomon effect, which describes the existence of multiple near-optimal models for the same task. Although the Rashomon effect has received increasing attention, it remains unclear whether different sources of training stochasticity contribute similarly or differently to its manifestations. In this work, we present an empirical study of the Rashomon phenomenon along three complementary dimensions: solution-space multiplicity, predictive multiplicity, and decision-basis multiplicity. These dimensions are quantified through the size of the empirical Rashomon set, predictive ambiguity, and agreement between XAI attribution maps, respectively. By independently controlling three standard sources of stochasticity, namely weight initialization, mini-batch data ordering, and dropout, we isolate their respective contributions to each dimension of the Rashomon phenomenon. Experiments on tabular and image classification benchmarks reveal that these sources affect the three dimensions in different ways. In particular, larger empirical Rashomon sets do not necessarily correspond to greater predictive disagreement or lower explanation agreement, indicating that solution-space, predictive, and decision-basis multiplicity capture complementary rather than interchangeable aspects of the Rashomon effect. Overall, our results show that training stochasticity influences not only predictive performance but also the stability of predictions and explanations, highlighting the importance of identifying the specific sources of stochasticity responsible for different manifestations of the Rashomon phenomenon when assessing the reliability, reproducibility, and interpretability of neural network models.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Sep 2026.
Builds on
19 of 35 references.
References · 19
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
- 2017Fashion-MNIST: a Novel Image Dataset for Benchmarking Machine Learning Algorithmscited by 4,349
- 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,384
- 2013Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networkscited by 2,290
- 2020Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?cited by 599
- 2017Interpretation of Neural Networks is Fragilecited by 444
- 2018All Models are Wrong, but Many are Useful: Learning a Variable's Importance by Studying an Entire Class of Prediction Models Simultaneouslycited by 373
- 2019Predictive Multiplicity in Classificationcited by 166
- 2022The Disagreement Problem in Explainable Machine Learning: A Practitioner's Perspectivecited by 159
- 2020Aligning Faithful Interpretations with their Social Attributioncited by 79
- 2021Order in the Court: Explainable AI Methods Prone to Disagreementcited by 36
- 2023A Path to Simpler Models Starts With Noisecited by 33
7 more
- 2023An Empirical Evaluation of the Rashomon Effect in Explainable Machine Learningcited by 25
- 2025Systemizing Multiplicity: The Curious Case of Arbitrariness in Machine Learningcited by 17
- 2021Agree to Disagree: When Deep Learning Models With Identical Architectures Produce Distinct Explanationscited by 15
- 2024Explanation sensitivity to the randomness of large language models: the case of journalistic text classificationcited by 3
- 2020A general approach to compute the relevance of middle-level input featurescited by 2
- 2023Can we Agree? On the Rash=omon Effect and the Reliability of Post-Hoc Explainable AIcited by 2
- 2024On the Rashomon ratio of infinite hypothesis setscited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.