Papers › Certify or Refuse: A Cross-Model Map for Selective Risk Control with Coverage Floors...
Certify or Refuse: A Cross-Model Map for Selective Risk Control with Coverage Floors under Covariate Shift
Jiamiao Liu, Dewen Qiao, Yu Zhang, Xuetao Chen
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
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→0, 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.
In Syntology For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2608.10893")
Code
Syntology Ran 11 of 23 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 12 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 11 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 23 samples from 1 repository, 11 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
23 samples harvested; 11 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 12 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 23 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from yahiko-l/certify-or-refuse. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
4a374dc464852df1 · report
a13cb7d8d8e1d807 · report
8611e3c66cfb21cf · report
59adaa7ba3c1232d · report
484436a59ef9d7db · report
b5410fe2a754de4b · report
6f81f6b45e3baa82 · report
b416d85dde54ee01 · report
4553d8199f29b864 · report
8e8449631ba6f6ca · report
8b4f1b3e9ba68310 · report
f81504cd27f25646 · report
fbbbfb7652d7e168 · report
2a53f9ee5a103976 · report
1d422bf98096e0e4 · report
f609a01f01a43ffc · report
6f6b3cbd1f672f6e · report
96a4e7492b16c72e · report
e3b6206efd615be1 · report
41357adb3bac54d9 · report
743fd53f33221023 · report
d3d34373222d29fe · report
62a99f8e533ccf51 · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2608.10893, was issued in August 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections