Efficient Ensemble Selection from Binary and Pairwise Feedback
Authors: Tzeh Yuan Neoh, Nicholas Teh, Je Qin Chooi, Paul W. Goldberg, Milind Tambe
Organizations: Harvard University, USA · University of Oxford, UK
Abstract
Organizations increasingly deploy multiple AI systems across task domains, but selecting a small, high-performing ensemble can require costly model calls, benchmark runs, and human evaluation. We study this selection problem as a distributional variant of multiwinner voting: tasks are drawn from an unknown domain distribution, each task induces feedback over candidate experts, and a committee's value on a task is determined by its best-performing member. We analyze both binary feedback, for tasks with correct/incorrect outcomes, and pairwise feedback, for tasks where candidate outputs are compared by preference. In the binary setting, the induced objective is coverage. We give exhaustive-elicitation baselines and matching worst-case query lower bounds, and we design a failure-conditioned greedy algorithm that preserves the standard (1−1/e) guarantee while obtaining instance-dependent query savings. In the pairwise setting, we study θ-winning committees. We show that full-information optimization admits a PTAS but no EPTAS under Gap-ETH, and that the objective is monotone but not submodular. This motivates a weighted ordinal coverage relaxation, which is submodular and supports a failure-conditioned greedy oracle under pairwise feedback. We then convert this oracle back into θ-type guarantees through finite-family auditing or a minimax wrapper. We also provide small-scale LLM experiments illustrating the predicted query savings and the role of complementarity in committee selection.
Selective ensemble for modern machine learning systems requires choosing promising model candidates under limited evaluation budgets, while downstream tasks often specify only partial preferences over capabilities such as accuracy, robustness, and reasoning. This setting naturally gives rise to a sequential decision problem under partially specified linear preferences. We formalize it as preference-directed multi-objective bandits (PDMOB), where admissible trade-offs are represented by a polyhedral preference cone. Based on this formulation, we introduce Pareto C-optimality, which recovers standard Pareto optimality and single-weight scalarization as special cases. We then propose the preference-directed upper confidence bound (PrefUCB) algorithm, which maintains directional confidence intervals to guide exploration. We analyze both indicator-based and gap-weighted regret, and establish instance-dependent logarithmic bounds for both criteria, recovering the optimal logarithmic dependence on the horizon T in classical special cases. Experiments on large pre-trained model selective ensemble tasks and online asset allocation under institutional mandates validate the efficacy of our method.
Many high-stakes AI deployments proceed only if every stakeholder deems the system acceptable relative to their own minimum standard. With randomization over a finite menu of options, this becomes a feasibility question: does there exist a lottery over options that clears all stakeholders' acceptability bars? We study a query model where the algorithm proposes lotteries and receives only binary accept/reject feedback. We give deterministic and randomized algorithms that either find a unanimously acceptable lottery or certify infeasibility; adaptivity can avoid eliciting many stakeholders' constraints, and randomization further reduces the expected elicitation cost relative to full elicitation. We complement these upper bounds with worst-case lower bounds (in particular, linear dependence on the number of stakeholders and logarithmic dependence on precision are unavoidable). Finally, we develop learning-augmented algorithms that exploit natural forms of advice (e.g., likely binding stakeholders or a promising lottery), improving query complexity when predictions are accurate while preserving worst-case guarantees.
Language-model judges and reward models enable scalable supervision, but finite optimization can exploit evaluator errors rather than improve response quality. We characterize this failure through the covariance geometry of evaluator ensembles. For calibrated judges, the ensemble mean retains common-mode error along the all-ones direction, whereas cross-judge disagreement captures only orthogonal error. Consequently, disagreement can be high despite robust aggregation, or low while shared response-dependent errors persist. We prove that common-mode error is not identifiable from internal judge scores alone. Under a joint sub-Gaussian model, we bound best-of-K selection overstatement and target-quality regret, extending the guarantees to predictably adaptive search under conditional calibration. The resulting search terms scale as the square root of log K and are asymptotically tight for Gaussian projected errors. We further show that noisy quality proxies introduce artificial rank-one covariance without changing disagreement, and propose a bounded two-anchor Bernstein certificate for finite-search error and regret. Fixed-seed Gaussian stress tests over 120 (J, rho, K) configurations and real-model audits validate the theory while revealing the limits of disagreement-based diagnostics under increasing search pressure.