aiqbench analysis
This paper introduces Certified Adaptive Selection (CAS), a method for efficiently identifying the exact top-$k$ algorithms or schedules by certifying decisions when uncertainty no longer affects the outcome. By maintaining guaranteed bounds on Expected Shortfall, CAS minimizes the number of required evaluations even under adversarial conditions, offering a rigorous framework for robust algorithm selection.
Certify the Decision, Not Every Score: Exact Top-k Selection from Few Evaluations
arXiv:2610.14996v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Choosing a few robust algorithms or schedules can require evaluating every candidate under many adverse scenarios, even though an agent only needs to identify the winners. A predictor may suggest those winners, but cannot rule out a surprise in an unevaluated scenario. We introduce Certified Adaptive Selection (CAS), which returns the exact top-$k$ set as soon as remaining uncertainty cannot change it. CAS keeps guaranteed lower and upper bounds on Expected Shortfall (ES), the average loss in the worst scenarios. Its stopping test compares the worst admissible selected candidate with the best admissible excluded one; for information-disjoint Cartesian intervals this one-cut test is necessary and sufficient. Prediction has a separate role: selecting the next outcome to evaluate, never authorizing the decision. For empirical ES with exact unit-cost queries, we compute in polynomial time the fewest evaluations that could have proved the realized decision in hindsight. Our prediction-guided agent CAS-PG is exact for every predictor, including adversarial ones. On two public algorithm-selection matrices, CAS-PG certifies the exact top three after 630 of 3150 and 981 of 2200 replayed queries, or $1.14$ and $1.18$ times that hindsight minimum. Without historical outcomes, its transcript-only variant requires $1.28$ and $1.37$ times the minimum, outperforming the tested non-predictive certified policies. Separately, a prediction-free CAS policy avoids $93.0\%$ of exact recourse solves in synthetic energy scheduling. One certificate thus supports several acquisition policies and separately proved risk/cost extensions: prediction changes the work, not the justified choice.
Abstract:Choosing a few robust algorithms or schedules can require evaluating every candidate under many adverse scenarios, even though an agent only needs to identify the winners. A predictor may suggest those winners, but cannot rule out a surprise in an unevaluated scenario. We introduce Certified Adaptive Selection (CAS), which returns the exact top-$k$ set as soon as remaining uncertainty cannot change it. CAS keeps guaranteed lower and upper bounds on Expected Shortfall (ES), the average loss in the worst scenarios. Its stopping test compares the worst admissible selected candidate with the best admissible excluded one; for information-disjoint Cartesian intervals this one-cut test is necessary and sufficient. Prediction has a separate role: selecting the next outcome to evaluate, never authorizing the decision. For empirical ES with exact unit-cost queries, we compute in polynomial time the fewest evaluations that could have proved the realized decision in hindsight. Our prediction-guided agent CAS-PG is exact for every predictor, including adversarial ones. On two public algorithm-selection matrices, CAS-PG certifies the exact top three after 630 of 3150 and 981 of 2200 replayed queries, or $1.14$ and $1.18$ times that hindsight minimum. Without historical outcomes, its transcript-only variant requires $1.28$ and $1.37$ times the minimum, outperforming the tested non-predictive certified policies. Separately, a prediction-free CAS policy avoids $93.0\%$ of exact recourse solves in synthetic energy scheduling. One certificate thus supports several acquisition policies and separately proved risk/cost extensions: prediction changes the work, not the justified choice.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2610.14996 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2610.14996v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.14996 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 334 words
Related coverage

The Entangled Dimensions of Decision Theory
LessWrong · Jul 30, 2026

MedPAIR: Measuring Whether Physicians and AI Agree on What Matters in Medical QA
Snorkel AI Blog · Oct 2, 2026

Underwriting Superintelligence: Backing Agents you can Sue — Rune Kvist, AIUC
Latent Space · Sep 16, 2026

Game-Theoretic Disempowerment: Loss of Control to Agencyless AI
LessWrong · Sep 27, 2026