mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Improving Selective Classification with Pairwise Queries for Binary Classification

arXiv 2605.30615 ↗First posted 28 May 2026cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 49 of its 75 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 May 2026.

Builds on

49 of 75 references.

References · 49

  1. 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,744
  2. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  3. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,599
  4. 2017Graph Attention Networkscited by 8,923
  5. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
  6. 2015Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 4,448
  7. 2016Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensemblescited by 3,926
  8. 2021Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learnerscited by 3,780
  9. 2017Neural Message Passing for Quantum Chemistrycited by 3,487
  10. 2018Neural Tangent Kernel: Convergence and Generalization in Neural Networkscited by 2,621
  11. 2019BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Difficulty of Natural Yes/No Questionscited by 2,183
  12. 2025Gemma 3 Technical Reportcited by 1,824
37 more
  1. 2019SuperGLUE: A Stickier Benchmark for General-Purpose Language Understanding Systemscited by 1,729
  2. 2018Spider: A Large-Scale Human-Labeled Dataset for Complex and Cross-Domain Semantic Parsing and Text-to-SQL Taskcited by 1,139
  3. 2017Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networkscited by 852
  4. 2022A Survey on In-context Learningcited by 721
  5. 2023Can LLM Already Serve as A Database Interface? A BIg Bench for Large-Scale Database Grounded Text-to-SQLscited by 688
  6. 2018On Lazy Training in Differentiable Programmingcited by 675
  7. 2020A Survey of Deep Active Learningcited by 554
  8. 2020CodeBLEU: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Code Synthesiscited by 479
  9. 2025GLM-4.5V and GLM-4.1V-Thinking: Towards Versatile Multimodal Reasoning with Scalable Reinforcement Learningcited by 466
  10. 2021Sentence-T5: Scalable Sentence Encoders from Pre-trained Text-to-Text Modelscited by 463
  11. 2019RAT-SQL: Relation-Aware Schema Encoding and Linking for Text-to-SQL Parserscited by 424
  12. 2019SelectiveNet: A Deep Neural Network with an Integrated Reject Optioncited by 350
  13. 2017Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Artcited by 315
  14. 2021The Intrinsic Dimension of Images and Its Impact on Learningcited by 315
  15. 2023Large Language Models are Effective Text Rankers with Pairwise Ranking Promptingcited by 307
  16. 2024Spider 2.0: Evaluating Language Models on Real-World Enterprise Text-to-SQL Workflowscited by 232
  17. 2019Graph Matching Networks for Learning the Similarity of Graph Structured Objectscited by 205
  18. 2019Addressing Failure Prediction by Learning Model Confidencecited by 186
  19. 2020Semantic Evaluation for Text-to-SQL with Distilled Test Suitescited by 126
  20. 2023LLMaAA: Making Large Language Models as Active Annotatorscited by 79
  21. 2022On the Relation between Sensitivity and Accuracy in In-context Learningcited by 72
  22. 2022Prototypical Calibration for Few-shot Learning of Language Modelscited by 58
  23. 2022A Survey of Active Learning for Natural Language Processingcited by 40
  24. 2024VisOnlyQA: Large Vision Language Models Still Struggle with Visual Perception of Geometric Informationcited by 39
  25. 2014On the folded normal distributioncited by 31
  26. 2023Fairness and Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: a Multidisciplinary Surveycited by 30
  27. 2017Active classification with comparison queriescited by 27
  28. 2021Efficient Algorithms for Learning from Coarse Labelscited by 21
  29. 2025From Selection to Generation: A Survey of LLM-based Active Learningcited by 19
  30. 2020Noise-tolerant, Reliable Active Classification with Comparison Queriescited by 17
  31. 2022AUC-based Selective Classificationcited by 13
  32. 2024Deep Neural Network Benchmarks for Selective Classificationcited by 12
  33. 2021Bounded Memory Active Learning through Enriched Queriescited by 8
  34. 2017The Relationship Between Agnostic Selective Classification Active Learning and the Disagreement Coefficientcited by 6
  35. 2022Promises and Pitfalls of Threshold-based Auto-labelingcited by 6
  36. 2023ASTormer: An AST Structure-aware Transformer Decoder for Text-to-SQLcited by 2
  37. 2024FuncEvalGMN: Evaluating Functional Correctness of SQL via Graph Matching Networkcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.