Skip to content
aiqbench takeMachine Learning

aiqbench analysis

This research establishes rigorous mathematical bounds for the number of labels required to certify model selection decisions in selective prediction scenarios. By linking confidence ranks to label budgets via linear programming, it quantifies the computational cost needed to distinguish between classifiers with identical predictions but different error distributions. These findings are critical for optimizing data acquisition strategies in high-stakes AI applications where verification costs must be balanced against decision reliability.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

How Many Labels Does Model Choice Need? Certificates and Budgets for Selective Prediction

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2609.18622v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Classifiers can make identical predictions yet require labels to compare their selective performance: confidence ranks weight the same errors differently. We quantify this requirement for the area under the generalized risk-coverage curve (AUGRC). A prelabel lower bound rules out insufficient budgets. With all labels known, a covering linear program bounds the minimum number of labels sufficient to fix the winner (the certificate size) within $K-1$ labels for $K$ candidates. For fixed $K$, independent uniform orders and identical predictions, the prelabel bound approaches one quarter of the pool. With iid Bernoulli errors independent of the orders, every exact acquisition policy reads almost all labels asymptotically, although a two-candidate certificate needs only half. Across 108 feature-panel comparisons on nine datasets, disagreement labels settle every accuracy choice but no AUGRC choice. A 20% budget is ruled out in 96 conditions; certificates need 56-57% on average. On ten conditions with pretrained image classifiers, confidence-score choice reads 68-91% of 10,000 labels for exact selection and 50-67% with AUGRC tolerance $5\times10^{-4}$. An exact stopping test works with any acquisition order. Together, these results link confidence ranks to label budgets and certified model comparison.

Title:How Many Labels Does Model Choice Need? Certificates and Budgets for Selective Prediction

Abstract:Classifiers can make identical predictions yet require labels to compare their selective performance: confidence ranks weight the same errors differently. We quantify this requirement for the area under the generalized risk-coverage curve (AUGRC). A prelabel lower bound rules out insufficient budgets. With all labels known, a covering linear program bounds the minimum number of labels sufficient to fix the winner (the certificate size) within $K-1$ labels for $K$ candidates. For fixed $K$, independent uniform orders and identical predictions, the prelabel bound approaches one quarter of the pool. With iid Bernoulli errors independent of the orders, every exact acquisition policy reads almost all labels asymptotically, although a two-candidate certificate needs only half. Across 108 feature-panel comparisons on nine datasets, disagreement labels settle every accuracy choice but no AUGRC choice. A 20% budget is ruled out in 96 conditions; certificates need 56-57% on average. On ten conditions with pretrained image classifiers, confidence-score choice reads 68-91% of 10,000 labels for exact selection and 50-67% with AUGRC tolerance $5\times10^{-4}$. An exact stopping test works with any acquisition order. Together, these results link confidence ranks to label budgets and certified model comparison.

22 pages, 13 figures, 3 tables. Includes proofs and experimental details in the main text

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Machine Learning (stat.ML)

arXiv:2609.18622 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2609.18622v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.18622 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 · 312 words

Related coverage