Projective Boundary Certificates for Neural Selective Prediction
Implementation & benchmark of arXiv:2609.01355 — Exact Risk-Complexity Laws for Projective Boundaries in Scenario Optimization and Distribution-Free Certification
Source paper: Exact Risk-Complexity Laws for Projective Boundaries in Scenario Optimization and Distribution-Free Certification arXiv:2609.01355 ⓘ · analyzed Sep 2, 2026
AI-generated research hypothesis, automatically tested. Not peer-reviewed.
Idea description
Construct a neural acceptance or abstention set from calibration samples together with an explicit boundary map selecting the samples that determine the set. If the map is proper projective and its cross-sample complexity profile is stable, the conditional violation risk has an exact beta law indexed by boundary size rather than network parameter count. This provides a falsifiable, distribution-free certificate for neural selective classifiers and learned safety filters.
Formulas
Mathematical statement
Let S=(z_1,...,z_n) be an exchangeable calibration sample, A(S) the acceptance set for a fresh point z, and B(S) a boundary map. Define R(S)=P(z is not in A(S) given S) and K(S)=|B(S)|. Proper projectivity requires that a held-out point z_i is accepted by the leave-one-out rule exactly when the full-sample boundary is retained, and that deleting any accepted non-boundary point does not change B(S). If the cross-sample complexity profile q_k is stable, exchangeability gives a beta law, with indexing determined by the boundary convention; a common convention is R given K=k distributed as Beta(k,n+1-k). If q_k varies, conditioning only on K is invalid and the conditional law must be represented as a mixture over boundary configurations c with weights w(c given k).
Implementation notes
1. Integration point: train a neural predictor on a training split, then construct an acceptance rule on an independent calibration split. For selective classification, let s_theta(x,y) be a nonconformity score and accept when s_theta(x,y) is at most a calibrated threshold t(S). For a safety filter, use several scores and a vector threshold. Store an explicit boundary map consisting of points attaining the active order statistic or active Pareto/support constraints. 2. Pseudocode: compute calibration scores; construct A(S) and B(S); record K; for each calibration index i, delete z_i and recompute the rule; test whether deleting i preserves the boundary and whether z_i is accepted exactly when the boundary is preserved. Repeat over random subsets to estimate the cross-sample profile. If the profile is stable, calculate the beta upper quantile BetaInv(1-delta;k,n+1-k). If it is unstable, estimate mixture weights over boundary configurations and use the corresponding mixture quantile. 3. Taken from the paper: projectivity, deletion invariance, boundary-size conditioning, and the beta-versus-mixture distinction. Estimated empirically: profile stability, deletion invariance, and mixture weights. 4. First experiment: use an MLP on MNIST with an independent calibration split and top-score abstention. Compare ordinary conformal calibration, the beta certificate, and a naive boundary-size certificate. Repeat over at least 1,000 test batches. The prediction is that scalar order-statistic rules will match the beta CDF, while tied or competing vector boundaries will deviate from it but match the estimated profile mixture; certified violation frequency should remain below delta.
Verification
Stage 1 · Toy mechanism gate: Not tested
Stage 2 · Mechanism transferred to benchmark: Not tested
Stage 2 · Practical benchmark result: Not run
Methodology: Toy-system gate first; the benchmark stage runs only after a pass. How verification works
Stage 1 — Mechanism check
Verdict computed by deterministic test code from paired-seed statistics — not by the language model.
Artifacts
Artifacts unavailable.