As a result of this analysis, we are able to pinpoint possible future paths to improvement forscalability andcomputational speed.

The Rashomon effect -- the existence of multiple, distinct models that achieve nearly equivalent predictive performance -- has emerged as a fundamental phenomenon in modern machine learning and statistics. In this paper, we explore the causes underlying the Rashomon effect, organizing them into three categories: statistical sources arising from finite samples and noise in the data-generating process; structural sources arising from non-convexity of optimization objectives and unobserved variables that create fundamental non-identifiability; and procedural sources arising from limitations of optimization algorithms and deliberate restrictions to suboptimal model classes. We synthesize insights from machine learning, statistics, and optimization literature to provide a unified framework for understanding why the multiplicity of good models arises. A key distinction emerges: statistical multiplicity diminishes with more data, structural multiplicity persists asymptotically and cannot be resolved without different data or additional assumptions, and procedural multiplicity reflects choices made by practitioners. Beyond characterizing causes, we discuss both the challenges and opportunities presented by the Rashomon effect, including implications for inference, interpretability, fairness, and decision-making under uncertainty.

Reinforcement learning (RL)-based motion imitation methods trained on demonstration data can effectively learn natural and expressive motions with minimal reward engineering but often struggle to generalize to novel environments. We address this by proposing a hierarchical RL framework in which a low-level policy is first pre-trained to imitate animal motions on flat ground, thereby establishing motion priors. A subsequent high-level, goal-conditioned policy then builds on these priors, learning residual corrections that enable perceptive locomotion, local obstacle avoidance, and goal-directed navigation across diverse and rugged terrains. Simulation experiments illustrate the effectiveness of learned residuals in adapting to progressively challenging uneven terrains while still preserving the locomotion characteristics provided by the motion priors. Furthermore, our results demonstrate improvements in motion regularization over baseline models trained without motion priors under similar reward setups. Real-world experiments with an ANYmal-D quadruped robot confirm our policy's capability to generalize animal-like locomotion skills to complex terrains, demonstrating smooth and efficient locomotion and local navigation performance amidst challenging terrains with obstacles.

Inherently interpretable machine learning (IML) models provide valuable insights for clinical decision-making but face challenges when features have missing values. Classical solutions like imputation or excluding incomplete records are often unsuitable in applications where values are missing at test time. In this work, we conducted a survey with 71 clinicians from 29 trauma centers across France, including 20 complete responses to study the interaction between medical professionals and IML applied to data with missing values. This provided valuable insights into how missing data is interpreted in clinical machine learning. We used the prediction of hemorrhagic shock as a concrete example to gauge the willingness and readiness of the participants to adopt IML models from three classes of methods. Our findings show that, while clinicians value interpretability and are familiar with common IML methods, classical imputation techniques often misalign with their intuition, and that models that natively handle missing values are preferred. These results emphasize the need to integrate clinical intuition into future IML models for better human-computer interaction.

Different prediction models might perform equally well (Rashomon set) in the same task, but offer conflicting interpretations and conclusions about the data. The Rashomon effect in the context of Explainable AI (XAI) has been recognized as a critical factor. Although the Rashomon set has been introduced and studied in various contexts, its practical application is at its infancy stage and lacks adequate guidance and evaluation. We study the problem of the Rashomon set sampling from a practical viewpoint and identify two fundamental axioms - generalizability and implementation sparsity that exploring methods ought to satisfy in practical usage. These two axioms are not satisfied by most known attribution methods, which we consider to be a fundamental weakness. We use the norms to guide the design of an $\epsilon$-subgradient-based sampling method. We apply this method to a fundamental mathematical problem as a proof of concept and to a set of practical datasets to demonstrate its ability compared with existing sampling methods.

The Rashomon Effect, coined by Leo Breiman, describes the phenomenon that there exist many equally good predictive models for the same dataset. This phenomenon happens for many real datasets and when it does, it sparks both magic and consternation, but mostly magic. In light of the Rashomon Effect, this perspective piece proposes reshaping the way we think about machine learning, particularly for tabular data problems in the nondeterministic (noisy) setting. We address how the Rashomon Effect impacts (1) the existence of simple-yet-accurate models, (2) flexibility to address user preferences, such as fairness and monotonicity, without losing performance, (3) uncertainty in predictions, fairness, and explanations, (4) reliable variable importance, (5) algorithm choice, specifically, providing advanced knowledge of which algorithms might be suitable for a given problem, and (6) public policy. We also discuss a theory of when the Rashomon Effect occurs and why. Our goal is to illustrate how the Rashomon Effect can have a massive impact on the use of machine learning for complex problems in society.

Explanations of machine learning models are important, especially in scientific areas such as chemistry, biology, and physics, where they guide future laboratory experiments and resource requirements. These explanations can be derived from well-trained machine learning models (data-driven perspective) or specific domain knowledge (domain-driven perspective). However, there exist inconsistencies between these perspectives due to accurate yet misleading machine learning models and various stakeholders with specific needs, wants, or aims. This paper calls attention to these inconsistencies and suggests a way to find an accurate model with expected explanations that reinforce physical laws and meet stakeholders' requirements from a set of equally-good models, also known as Rashomon sets. Our goal is to foster a comprehensive understanding of these inconsistencies and ultimately contribute to the integration of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) into scientific domains.

Initially, those scholars employ these historical elements to forecast whether the criminal would re-offend. Subsequently, the binary outcome of recidivism serves as a proxy variable for recidivism risk. Some computer scientists also employ the probability (or score) assigned by the model for an offender's likelihood of re-offense as a gauge for their recidivism risk (Etzler et al., 2023; Ma et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022). While such configurations may seem intuitively compelling, they often embody an oversimplified and deterministic viewpoint, which stands in contradiction to contemporary social science theories. Firstly, historical factors alone are insufficient predictors of human actions.

Within the field of Requirements Engineering (RE), the increasing significance of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) in aligning AI-supported systems with user needs, societal expectations, and regulatory standards has garnered recognition. In general, explainability has emerged as an important non-functional requirement that impacts system quality. However, the supposed trade-off between explainability and performance challenges the presumed positive influence of explainability. If meeting the requirement of explainability entails a reduction in system performance, then careful consideration must be given to which of these quality aspects takes precedence and how to compromise between them. In this paper, we critically examine the alleged trade-off. We argue that it is best approached in a nuanced way that incorporates resource availability, domain characteristics, and considerations of risk. By providing a foundation for future research and best practices, this work aims to advance the field of RE for AI.

The recent rise of machine learning (ML) has been leveraged by practitioners and researchers to provide new solutions to an ever growing number of business problems. As with other ML applications, these solutions rely on model selection, which is typically achieved by evaluating certain metrics on models separately and selecting the model whose evaluations (i.e., accuracy-related loss and/or certain interpretability measures) are optimal. However, empirical evidence suggests that, in practice, multiple models often attain competitive results. Therefore, while models' overall performance could be similar, they could operate quite differently. This results in an implicit tradeoff in models' performance throughout the feature space which resolving requires new model selection tools. This paper explores methods for comparing predictive models in an interpretable manner to uncover the tradeoff and help resolve it. To this end, we propose various methods that synthesize ideas from supervised learning, unsupervised learning, dimensionality reduction, and visualization to demonstrate how they can be used to inform model developers about the model selection process. Using various datasets and a simple Python interface, we demonstrate how practitioners and researchers could benefit from applying these approaches to better understand the broader impact of their model selection choices.