Selective Ensembles for Consistent Predictions
  Recent work has shown that models trained to the same objective, and which
achieve similar measures of accuracy on consistent test data, may nonetheless
behave very differently on individual predictions. This inconsistency is
undesirable in high-stakes contexts, such as medical diagnosis and finance. We
show that this inconsistent behavior extends beyond predictions to feature
attributions, which may likewise have negative implications for the
intelligibility of a model, and one's ability to find recourse for subjects. We
then introduce selective ensembles to mitigate such inconsistencies by applying
hypothesis testing to the predictions of a set of models trained using
randomly-selected starting conditions; importantly, selective ensembles can
abstain in cases where a consistent outcome cannot be achieved up to a
specified confidence level. We prove that that prediction disagreement between
selective ensembles is bounded, and empirically demonstrate that selective
ensembles achieve consistent predictions and feature attributions while
maintaining low abstention rates. On several benchmark datasets, selective
ensembles reach zero inconsistently predicted points, with abstention rates as
low 1.5%.
