A Unified Descriptive-Complexity Framework for Model Selection under Correlated Designs

Classical information criteria such as the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) rely on regularity assumptions that break down for singular models, leading to incorrect model selection in settings such as deep learning. The Widely Applicable Bayesian Information Criterion (WBIC) relies on local learning coefficients $λ$, which in the analytic case coincides with local Real Log Canonical Thresholds (RLCT) of the Kullback-Leibler divergence of the model, to capture correct marginal likelihood asymptotics. Exact computation of the learning coefficients has been limited to special cases, and only sampling-based estimation methods are generally applicable. We present the first deterministic algorithm that computes local RLCTs exactly for any two-dimensional model whose Kullback-Leibler distance is contact equivalent to a polynomial, derive a bound on its complexity, and demonstrate its effectiveness for a broad class of models, with applications including polynomial neural networks. Beyond providing ground truth to calibrate sampling-based estimators, exact computation reveals algebraic structure in learning coefficients that sampling cannot and out-speeds it in the shallow regime.

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.

Minimum Description Length (MDL) formalizes the principle of Occam's razor by optimizing the total description length: $L(\mathrm{model})+L(\mathrm{data} \ | \ \mathrm{model})$. For sequential prediction, the MDL method repeatedly selects a model with a minimum objective score of the observed prefix for the next step prediction. Classical MDL prediction theory shows that exact optimization of the MDL objective indeed provides a strong compression guarantee that supports reliable prediction. However, practical machine learning usually can only find models by approximately optimizing the objective function. To bridge this gap, this paper addresses the following fundamental question: Under what forms of approximation and regularization does approximate MDL still guarantee reliable sequential prediction? This work offers a principled characterization. We prove that for any approximation with additive slack $C$ of the more general form of the balanced MDL objective: $λ\cdot L(\mathrm{model})+L(\mathrm{data} \ | \ \mathrm{model})$, the cumulative expected squared prediction error is finite for all $λ\ge1$. The case $λ>1$ is proved by an affinity-telescoping argument, while the boundary case $λ=1$ is proved by a likelihood-ratio stopping argument based on exact static MDL bounds. Our results establish that classical MDL regularization remains robust to any fixed additive optimization error. Furthermore, we establish that our characterization of the approximate MDL framework is sharp: When $0<λ<1$, overfits can happen to incur infinite cumulative expected error in the universal class of estimable measures, and hence a strong form of model-complexity regularization is necessary. In addition, model selection may fail in every regularized regime $λ>0$, under multiplicative approximation, and thus, additive approximation is both sufficient and essential.