Measuring consistency via ensemble margin and local prediction variability: Auditing decision systems in the presence of predictive multiplicity

The Rashomon effect is a machine learning phenomenon where equally accurate models produce different predictions for the same inputs (predictive multiplicity). Existing work primarily focuses on multiplicity within individual models, but in more complex decision systems, the impact of the Rashomon effect is less well understood. In this work, we study multiplicity from the perspective of auditing incorrect ensemble predictions, where the decision to divert an instance for human review is based on a consistency criterion that combines the ensemble margin with a measure of local prediction variability for each constituent model. With mild assumptions about stability and smoothness, we show that the consistency scores of finite ensembles converge to the corresponding consistency score of the expected model from the Rashomon set as the ensemble size and the number of samples used to measure local prediction variability increase. To demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed criterion, we evaluate the framework with respect to transformer models applied to natural language understanding tasks and parameter-efficient fine-tuning of large language models used for tabular data classification tasks. Our experiments show that ensembling models from the Rashomon set substantially reduces the risk of incorrect predictions going unchecked compared with auditing a single model, while incurring only a moderate increase in the number of diversions. Moreover, the auditing behavior of the full Rashomon set can be closely approximated by finite ensembles of relatively modest size, with the risk approaching zero for some datasets. We further demonstrate that the proposed measure exhibits stronger agreement with established predictive multiplicity metrics than existing consistency measures, providing a more reliable way to capture multiplicity in the Rashomon set.

Signed Evidence Flow: Conflict-Aware and Stability-Calibrated Data Analysis

Modern data analysis usually gives a prediction without showing whether the evidence behind it is clear, conflicting, or stable. Two cases can have the same fitted confidence even when one has mostly agreeing evidence and the other has strong support and strong opposition. We propose Signed Evidence Flow (SEF), which combines a fitted prediction rule with signed feature attributions to measure support, opposition, conflict, and perturbation stability. We prove that confidence determines conflict exactly when it also determines total evidence mass, derive the remaining conditional variance, and state when conflict can improve loss prediction beyond confidence and other audit variables. We also connect conflict to geometric decision fragility. Across healthcare, Covertype, black-box, finance, and ten external data sets, conflict sometimes separates risk among predictions that already appear confident. Cross-fitted tests show added error-ranking information beyond confidence and attribution entropy on several data sets, including two large finance tasks. The direction is not universal: in some tasks, lowconflict cases are riskier. We therefore introduce ScopeGate, a held-out permutation diagnostic that checks the direction before SEF is used for review triage. SEF is consequently an audit tool rather than a universal risk score: it describes evidence structure, while an independent calibration sample determines whether that structure is useful in the target population.

Decoy-Calibrated Failure Audits for Language Models

Useful audits reveal not only how often a model fails, but also where its failures concentrate. An auditor may test many candidate explanations: long inputs, indirect questions, distracting evidence, or combinations of these factors. The risk is selection. The largest observed effect may reflect a real failure mode, or it may simply be the best result among many tried. We introduce Janus, a procedure for deciding when a proposed error explanation is credible enough to report. The goal is not to generate new explanations, but to decide which ones hold up. The auditor starts with a fixed model, a labeled evaluation set, and a frozen list of candidate explanations, which we call descriptors. Janus scores each descriptor by its error-rate lift, then compares real descriptors with fake ones that have the same frequencies but are randomly assigned to examples. A descriptor is confirmed only if it beats this decoy floor on the data used for discovery and then repeats on separate held-out data. In a controlled audit of multi-table lookup tasks, Janus identifies the planted failure, confirming long-chain descriptors and their interactions. The LLM often stops partway through the lookup chain instead of reaching the final answer. On two public benchmarks, MuSiQue and LongBench v2, the SliceLine baseline flags plausible high-error pockets, but Janus confirms none of them. Ablations show why both safeguards matter. On LongBench v2, an uncalibrated fixed threshold reports 20 descriptors, the decoy floor leaves one, and the holdout check rejects the last one after its lift shrinks from 0.36 to 0.05. The resulting principle separates proposing explanations from reporting them. Candidates may come from any source, but only those that beat decoys and replicate on fresh data become audit findings.