mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

NL-PAC: Specification Ambiguity and Certified Minimax Risk Floors in LLM-Mediated Supervision

arXiv 2607.08961 ↗First posted 9 Jul 2026cs.LG cs.AI math.STcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models increasingly provide labels, evaluations, and feedback for tasks specified in natural language. When a specification admits multiple readings but the supervision channel does not reveal which is operative, additional labels reduce sampling error without resolving the resulting identification problem. We introduce Natural Language PAC (NL-PAC), a framework that uses a fixed model's thresholded decoding law to define admissible labels and candidate targets. The probability that multiple labels are admissible equals the diameter of the pointwise-admissible target class, and under target-blind supervision every learner incurs worst-case risk of at least half this diameter, at every sample size; the exact randomized minimax risk over this class is attained by a data-independent strategy. Finite-sample confidence bounds make these quantities certifiable from held-out unlabeled inputs. In a frozen Qwen~2.5--3B audit, one prespecified prompt yields a positive model-relative certificate, whereas a paraphrase and exact-rule controls yield zero. A held-out bridge audit finds that supplied candidate reading clauses fail the admissibility condition needed to transfer the certificate to coherent readings. The guarantee is specific to the audited model, prompt, threshold, and input distribution; extending it to human interpretations requires external validation.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 65 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Jul 2026.

Builds on

26 of 65 references.

References · 26

  1. 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,276
  2. 2024A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 1,423
  3. 2023Semantic Uncertainty: Linguistic Invariances for Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generationcited by 819
  4. 2023Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Modelscited by 575
  5. 2020Underspecification Presents Challenges for Credibility in Modern Machine Learningcited by 496
  6. 2022The Effects of Reward Misspecification: Mapping and Mitigating Misaligned Modelscited by 328
  7. 2018Time-uniform, nonparametric, nonasymptotic confidence sequencescited by 229
  8. 2020Estimating means of bounded random variables by bettingcited by 169
  9. 2020What Can We Learn from Collective Human Opinions on Natural Language Inference Data?cited by 153
  10. 2022The 'Problem' of Human Label Variation: On Ground Truth in Data, Modeling and Evaluationcited by 139
  11. 2023We're Afraid Language Models Aren't Modeling Ambiguitycited by 126
  12. 2023Eliciting Human Preferences with Language Modelscited by 92
14 more
  1. 2022Stop Measuring Calibration When Humans Disagreecited by 71
  2. 2021A Theory of PAC Learnability of Partial Concept Classescited by 60
  3. 2017Learning with Bounded Instance- and Label-dependent Label Noisecited by 57
  4. 2024Limits to scalable evaluation at the frontier: LLM as Judge won't beat twice the datacited by 51
  5. 2025What Prompts Don't Say: Understanding and Managing Underspecification in LLM Promptscited by 32
  6. 2026Reliability without Validity: A Systematic, Large-Scale Evaluation of LLM-as-a-Judge Models Across Agreement, Consistency, and Biascited by 28
  7. 2025Validating LLM-as-a-Judge Systems under Rating Indeterminacycited by 25
  8. 2025Active Task Disambiguation with LLMscited by 23
  9. 2026Diagnosing the Reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge via Item Response Theorycited by 16
  10. 2026Beyond Consensus: Perspectivist Modeling and Evaluation of Annotator Disagreement in NLPcited by 13
  11. 2023Language Models as a Service: Overview of a New Paradigm and its Challengescited by 10
  12. 2022Minimax risk classifiers with 0-1 losscited by 9
  13. 2025Information-theoretic Distinctions Between Deception and Confusioncited by 1
  14. 2026Towards Provably Unbiased LLM Judges via Bias-Bounded Evaluationcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.