How many labelers do you have? A closer look at gold-standard labels

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.

Machine-learning benchmarks often pair a label that aggregates a long temporal horizon with input observed through one or a few short windows. Their apparent performance ceiling may therefore be an acquisition-protocol ceiling rather than a model-capacity ceiling. We study labels of the form $Θ_{g,T}=T^{-1}\int_0^T g\{Z(t)\}\,\mathrm{d}t$ when the latent Gaussian process contains both a stable individual trait and a correlated within-individual state. An exact protocol-conditioned Bayes-risk identity provides a common tool. First, we decompose label variance into an $O(1)$ trait component and an $O(T^{-1})$ state component, explaining why a snapshot can retain cross-sectional predictability while poorly tracking within-person change. Second, we derive task-dependent effective temporal spans: mean labels depend on the ordinary correlation time, whereas occupation-time labels depend on an entire spectrum of higher-order correlation times. Third, state-driven occupation-label variance is maximal when the stable trait lies at the threshold; window efficiency decays much more slowly away from that boundary. Under an equal segment budget, exact risks and Monte Carlo experiments show that repeated segments at one time rapidly saturate, whereas temporally dispersed observations continue to increase state explainability. The trait ceiling uses quantities available from ordinary test-retest data; only the state ceiling requires short-lag temporal calibration. The results distinguish architectural limits from protocol limits and show that the label, rather than duration or segment count alone, defines the relevant timescale.

Prediction-Powered Inference (PPI) is a popular strategy for combining gold-standard and possibly noisy pseudo-labels to perform statistical estimation. Prior work has shown an asymptotic \enquote{free lunch} for PPI++, an adaptive form of PPI, showing that the \textit{asymptotic} variance of PPI++ is always less than or equal to the variance obtained from using gold-standard labels alone. Notably, this result holds \textit{regardless of the quality of the pseudo-labels}. In this work, we demystify this result by conducting an exact finite-sample analysis of the estimation error of PPI++ on the mean estimation problem. We give a \enquote{no free lunch} result, characterizing the settings (and sample sizes) where PPI++ has provably worse estimation error than using gold-standard labels alone. Specifically, PPI++ will outperform if and only if the correlation between pseudo- and gold-standard is above a certain level that depends on the number of labeled samples ($n$). In some cases our results simplify considerably: For Gaussian data, for instance, the correlation must be at least $1/\sqrt{n - 2}$ in order to see improvement. More broadly, by providing exact non-asymptotic expressions for the variance of PPI++ under sample splitting, we aim to empower practitioners to transparently reason about the benefits of PPI++ in specific applications. In experiments, we illustrate that our theoretical findings hold on real-world datasets.