mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Efficient Ensemble Selection from Binary and Pairwise Feedback

arXiv 2605.09588 ↗First posted 10 May 2026cs.GT cs.AI cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Organizations increasingly deploy multiple AI systems across task domains, but selecting a small, high-performing ensemble can require costly model calls, benchmark runs, and human evaluation. We study this selection problem as a distributional variant of multiwinner voting: tasks are drawn from an unknown domain distribution, each task induces feedback over candidate experts, and a committee's value on a task is determined by its best-performing member. We analyze both binary feedback, for tasks with correct/incorrect outcomes, and pairwise feedback, for tasks where candidate outputs are compared by preference. In the binary setting, the induced objective is coverage. We give exhaustive-elicitation baselines and matching worst-case query lower bounds, and we design a failure-conditioned greedy algorithm that preserves the standard (1-1/e) guarantee while obtaining instance-dependent query savings. In the pairwise setting, we study θ-winning committees. We show that full-information optimization admits a PTAS but no EPTAS under Gap-ETH, and that the objective is monotone but not submodular. This motivates a weighted ordinal coverage relaxation, which is submodular and supports a failure-conditioned greedy oracle under pairwise feedback. We then convert this oracle back into θ-type guarantees through finite-family auditing or a minimax wrapper. We also provide small-scale LLM experiments illustrating the predicted query savings and the role of complementarity in committee selection.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 7 of its 62 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 May 2026.

Builds on

7 of 62 references.

References · 7

  1. 2023DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelinescited by 832
  2. 2024RouterBench: A Benchmark for Multi-LLM Routing Systemcited by 238
  3. 2025A Survey on Large Language Model Benchmarkscited by 36
  4. 2025Beyond Majority Voting: LLM Aggregation by Leveraging Higher-Order Informationcited by 26
  5. 2025Diverse Committees with Incomplete or Inaccurate Approval Ballotscited by 1
  6. 2026Query-Based Committee Selectioncited by 1
  7. 2026Learning Unanimously Acceptable Lotteries via Queriescited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026State-dependent error correlations shape voting thresholds in committees of AI agents
  2. 2026Evaluator Ensembles Under Reward Hacking: Covariance Geometry and Finite-Search Guarantees
  3. 2024AlphaRank: An Artificial Intelligence Approach for Ranking and Selection Problems
  4. 2025LISTEN to Your Preferences: An LLM Framework for Multi-Objective Selection
  5. 2025Adaptive Ensemble Aggregation for Actor-Critics
  6. 2026Robust AI Evaluation through Maximal Lotteries
  7. 2026When Agents Disagree: The Selection Bottleneck in Multi-Agent LLM Pipelines
  8. 2026Learning a Ranking from Human Feedback in Log-Concave Random Utility Models