Papers › When No-Rejection Learning is Consistent for Regression with Rejection

When No-Rejection Learning is Consistent for Regression with Rejection

6 Jul 2023arXiv:2307.02932archive 2025-07-28

Xiaocheng Li, Shang Liu, Chunlin Sun, Hanzhao Wang

Learning with rejection has been a prototypical model for studying the human-AI interaction on prediction tasks. Upon the arrival of a sample instance, the model first uses a rejector to decide whether to accept and use the AI predictor to make a prediction or reject and defer the sample to humans. Learning such a model changes the structure of the original loss function and often results in undesirable non-convexity and inconsistency issues. For the classification with rejection problem, several works develop consistent surrogate losses for the joint learning of the predictor and the rejector, while there have been fewer works for the regression counterpart. This paper studies the regression with rejection (RwR) problem and investigates a no-rejection learning strategy that uses all the data to learn the predictor. We first establish the consistency for such a strategy under the weak realizability condition. Then for the case without the weak realizability, we show that the excessive risk can also be upper bounded with the sum of two parts: prediction error and calibration error. Lastly, we demonstrate the advantage of such a proposed learning strategy with empirical evidence.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. 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

7 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 7 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: 7 of the 7 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 hanzhao-wang/rwr. “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.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

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