How Many Labels Does Model Choice Need? Certificates and Budgets for Selective Prediction

Certified selective predictors attain whatever coverage they attain; operators impose an automation floor: answer at least a $β$-fraction of shifted target traffic with at most an $α$-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 $α$, 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 $α=β=1/2$). 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 $β\to0$, so the floor creates the map. Empirically, the registered bite family diverges with log-log slope $-2.002$ 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.

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 $\pacc$ above a floor $\pmin$, and lower-bounds the deployment utility. This certificate must be valid under adaptive threshold selection from a finite grid of $m$ pairs on $\ncert$ 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 $2\gammau$ 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 $\gammar < α$ and vacuous at the headline operating points. Relative to the range-only Hoeffding-ratio construction this sharpens the acceptance-floor dependence from $1/\pmin$ to $1/\sqrt{\pmin}$, 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 $+22$ pp certified-acceptance frontier over Hoeffding--CRC and is ${\approx}10{\times}$ tighter than a non-vacuous matched-valid baseline; these gains are regime-scoped, not universal, and absent on ADE20K. The certifier runs in $O(\ncert m)$ time.

In selective classification, a model predicts the labels of data samples where it is confident, and abstains from predicting labels for samples on which it is not confident. The rejected samples are often labeled by an expert, which is expensive. The budget for the expert is best utilized when the model has low error on non-rejected samples. However, the estimate of a model's confidence might be inconsistent with the model's predictions, which can lead to high error on non-rejected points. Such situations can readily occur in in-context binary classification by LLMs. To remedy this, we propose making additional pairwise queries to the same model. These pairwise queries can detect high-error samples and be incorporated into selective classification techniques to reduce the error on non-rejected samples. Theoretically, we establish the conditions under which a simple algorithm using pairwise queries outperforms an inconsistent confidence estimate. We support this insight through extensive experiments for $1$ synthetic and $4$ in-context learning-based real binary classification datasets. In all these cases, we show that our algorithms, using pairwise queries, obtain a better accuracy-cost tradeoff than using only the raw confidence estimates, for instance, the LLM's next-token logits.