aiqbench analysis
This research introduces practical elicitation procedures to quantify how much prediction imprecision users are willing to accept in exchange for increased robustness and accuracy. By demonstrating convergence on standard tabular and image benchmarks, the study offers a methodological tool for integrating set-valued classifiers into real-world decision-making pipelines where trustworthiness is paramount.
How Much Imprecision is Enough Imprecision in my Classifier? A Practical Elicitation Procedure
arXiv:2609.33352v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Set-valued classifiers, whether derived from precise probabilities and an adapted cost function, from convex sets with a robust inference mechanism, or from conformal methods, are routine options to obtain more robust, trustworthy predictions. However, there is a lack of operational tools to measure how robust or imprecise a given user is ready to be when receiving predictions, that is how much precision he/she is ready to let go in exchange of more accuracy. This is why we propose, in this paper, practical and operational elicitation procedures to measure the user proneness to set-valued predictions. The effectiveness of the iterative elicitation procedure in converging to the target parameter value is demonstrated on both tabular and image datasets drawn from standard machine learning benchmarks. The results show that the procedure also presents the user with a small number of instances, highlighting the practicality of the approach for real-world applications aimed at identifying the decision maker's optimal behavior when faced with imprecision.
Title:How Much Imprecision is Enough Imprecision in my Classifier? A Practical Elicitation Procedure
Abstract:Set-valued classifiers, whether derived from precise probabilities and an adapted cost function, from convex sets with a robust inference mechanism, or from conformal methods, are routine options to obtain more robust, trustworthy predictions. However, there is a lack of operational tools to measure how robust or imprecise a given user is ready to be when receiving predictions, that is how much precision he/she is ready to let go in exchange of more accuracy. This is why we propose, in this paper, practical and operational elicitation procedures to measure the user proneness to set-valued predictions. The effectiveness of the iterative elicitation procedure in converging to the target parameter value is demonstrated on both tabular and image datasets drawn from standard machine learning benchmarks. The results show that the procedure also presents the user with a small number of instances, highlighting the practicality of the approach for real-world applications aimed at identifying the decision maker's optimal behavior when faced with imprecision.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2609.33352 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.33352v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.33352 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 · 266 words
Related coverage
Fable and Mythos: Model Welfare
LessWrong · Jun 16, 2026

Research Note: Filtering Subversion-Relevant Information From Pretraining Data Is Feasible
LessWrong · Oct 5, 2026
Towards embedded evaluations for scheming propensities
LessWrong · Oct 8, 2026
Some Intuitions on Steering Vectors
LessWrong · Sep 29, 2026