eess.SYSep 1, 2026

Exact Risk-Complexity Laws for Projective Boundaries in Scenario Optimization and Distribution-Free Certification

Authors: Giuseppe C. Calafiore

Organizations: Department of Electronics and Telecommunications, Politecnico di Torino, Italy

Abstract

Scenario optimization, conformal prediction, and related distribution-free certification methods use finite samples to construct decisions or prediction sets with violation-risk guarantees for fresh observations. In several classical settings, the conditional violation risk follows an exact beta law, whose tail has a beta-binomial representation and whose parameter is a support, calibration, or compression dimension. This paper identifies the deterministic boundary mechanism behind these formulas and derives the corresponding law when the observed boundary size is random. A decision rule is represented by an acceptance set for future observations, together with a boundary map selecting the sample points responsible for that set. The resulting pair is called a {\em proper projective boundary scheme} when held-out samples are accepted precisely if the full-sample boundary is retained, and accepted non-boundary samples can be deleted without changing that boundary. For every such scheme, the conditional law of the violation risk given the observed boundary size is determined by the boundary's cross-sample complexity profile. A stable profile yields the usual beta law, whereas a varying profile produces an exact profile correction. The framework covers scalar order-statistic calibration, support-reconstructive scenario programs, cascaded support-removal certificates, coordinatewise envelopes, and Pareto-frontier calibration with vector scores. It also yields conditional probabilistic certificates and a no-go result explaining why observed complexity alone is insufficient.

Explore similar work

Jun 7, 2026cs.LG

A Joint Finite-Sample Certificate for Adaptive Selective Conformal Risk Control

Selective predictors answer on confident inputs and abstain elsewhere; deploying one safely needs a single finite-sample certificate that simultaneously upper-bounds the selected risk, lower-bounds the acceptance probability \pacc\pacc above a floor \pmin\pmin, and lower-bounds the deployment utility. This certificate must be valid under adaptive threshold selection from a finite grid of mm pairs on \ncert\ncert samples. We give such a certificate for bounded, possibly non-monotone losses by treating the selected risk directly as a ratio rather than through a Hoeffding-style range bound. The construction couples three confidence bounds: a variance-adaptive empirical-Bernstein bound on the ratio risk, a Clopper--Pearson bound on acceptance, and a two-sided closeness bound on utility. Together they lower-bound the certified policy's utility absolutely and to within 2\gammau2\gammau of the best over the \emph{certified set}, both non-vacuous whenever feasible; a regime-scoped third leg matches an external oracle, informative only where the risk margin \gammar<α\gammar < α and vacuous at the headline operating points. Relative to the range-only Hoeffding-ratio construction this sharpens the acceptance-floor dependence from 1/\pmin1/\pmin to 1/\pmin1/\sqrt{\pmin}, and a closed-form corollary identifies a per-pair regime in which our risk bound dominates a Hoeffding conformal risk control (Hoeffding--CRC) selective bound. Empirically, on ImageNet (three ResNets) and COCO val 2017 panoptic, the certificate opens a +22+22 pp certified-acceptance frontier over Hoeffding--CRC and is 10×{\approx}10{\times} tighter than a non-vacuous matched-valid baseline; these gains are regime-scoped, not universal, and absent on ADE20K. The certifier runs in O(\ncertm)O(\ncert m) time.
Xiaoli Yu, Jiamiao Liu
Aug 11, 2026cs.CL

Certify or Refuse: A Cross-Model Map for Selective Risk Control with Coverage Floors under Covariate Shift

Certified selective predictors attain whatever coverage they attain; operators impose an automation floor: answer at least a ββ-fraction of shifted target traffic with at most an αα-fraction of answers wrong. Under bounded-ratio covariate shift we prove the Floor Certification Map: once that floor must be certified alongside the selection-conditioned risk αα, certification acquires a feasibility frontier and a two-resource complexity map, additive up to constants: risk in labeled source, the floor in unlabeled target samples. The rates are local, needing a regular frontier margin, slack below the local-regime threshold, and lattice conditions: pre-registered with a lattice margin for the upper bounds, compatible per-slack for the lower. The displayed split is the operational route; oracle weights also allow a labeled-source floor estimate. Three model-tagged results: a lower bound (Model-B), a matching oracle-weight upper bound (Model-A), and an implementable upper bound (Model-B') valid under a pre-registered exact stratified-shift model with nuisance cost priced explicitly. The match is across these models rather than a single-model minimax theorem, and necessarily so: over the full bounded-ratio class no unknown-weight procedure matches at any sample size (Model-B is inconsistent, witnessed at α=β=1/2α=β=1/2). The nuisance's necessity is only partially settled. Complexity tracks a localized accepted-region functional, not global effective sample size (ESS), on both sides, though a fixed-ESS separation theorem is left open; both lower-bound axes vanish as β0β\to0, so the floor creates the map. Empirically, the registered bite family diverges with log-log slope 2.002-2.002 within its pre-registered band; a 1,024-cell audit records 0 violations where the formal certificates fire; and a single-corpus SQuAD-to-NewsQA feasibility audit returns honest refusal.
Jiamiao Liu, Dewen Qiao, Yu Zhang +1
Jun 17, 2026stat.ML

On Local Population-Risk Certificates

We develop finite-sample certificates for local population-risk increments Pδv=R(θ0+v)R(θ0)Pδ_v=R(θ_0+v)-R(θ_0), vDv\in\mathcal D. The primitive object is an expected-valid upper endpoint U^D\widehat{\mathsf U}_{\mathcal D} satisfying EsupvD{PδvU^D(v)}0\mathbb E\sup_{v\in\mathcal D} \{Pδ_v-\widehat{\mathsf U}_{\mathcal D}(v)\}\le0. This uniform criterion certifies any measurable update selected from the same sample and allows penalties to depend on empirical geometry. The main construction is a cross-fitted ridge calibration for linear feature classes. A pilot fold learns the ridge metric, the complementary fold calibrates the squared mean error in that metric, and complete split averaging recovers the full empirical covariance in the directional quadratic form q^X,λ\widehat q_{X,λ}. The optimized diagnostic scale is {q^X,λ(h)r^X,np,λcf/n}1/2\{\widehat q_{X,λ}(h) \widehat r_{X,n_{\rm p},λ}^{\rm cf}/n\}^{1/2}, and the calibrated trace factor r^X,np,λcf\widehat r_{X,n_{\rm p},λ}^{\rm cf} is compared with the ordinary ridge effective dimension r^X,λ\widehat r_{X,λ}. For nonsmooth losses, an exact fixed-mask decomposition δv=Jv0+Rv+Cvδ_v=J_v^0+R_v^\circ+C_v separates frozen Taylor fluctuations, good-path remainders, and interface crossings. Applying the linear and composite certificates componentwise yields endpoints for same-sample expected local search and concentrated release rules.
Mingzhi Song