# Risk-Controlled Selective LLM Answering by Pricing Label-Free Checks

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.37493 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.37493/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 37 of its 52 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 27 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 37)

- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (2023)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Program Synthesis with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07732/) (2021)
- [Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03314/) (2024)
- [Solving Quantitative Reasoning Problems with Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.14858/) (2022)
- [ZeRO: Memory Optimizations Toward Training Trillion Parameter Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.02054/) (2019)
- [Qwen2.5-Math Technical Report: Toward Mathematical Expert Model via Self-Improvement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12122/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01798/) (2023)
- [Large Language Monkeys: Scaling Inference Compute with Repeated Sampling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21787/) (2024)
- [SimPO: Simple Preference Optimization with a Reference-Free Reward](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.14734/) (2024)
- [Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.14275/) (2022)
- [Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.08500/) (2017)
- [Semantic Uncertainty: Linguistic Invariances for Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.09664/) (2023)
- [Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14975/) (2023)
- [SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08896/) (2023)
- [A Gentle Introduction to Conformal Prediction and Distribution-Free Uncertainty Quantification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.07511/) (2021)
- [Conformal Prediction Under Covariate Shift](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.06019/) (2019)
- [Generative Verifiers: Reward Modeling as Next-Token Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.15240/) (2024)
- [The Lessons of Developing Process Reward Models in Mathematical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.07301/) (2025)
- [Large Language Models are Better Reasoners with Self-Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09561/) (2022)
- [Distribution-Free, Risk-Controlling Prediction Sets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.02703/) (2021)
- [Learn then Test: Calibrating Predictive Algorithms to Achieve Risk Control](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.01052/) (2021)
- [Selective Question Answering under Domain Shift](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.09462/) (2020)
- [Deductive Verification of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.03872/) (2023)
- [Let's Sample Step by Step: Adaptive-Consistency for Efficient Reasoning and Coding with LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11860/) (2023)
- [Escape Sky-high Cost: Early-stopping Self-Consistency for Multi-step Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.10480/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Serving an answer from a large language model requires deciding when to abstain, yet a verifier's ranking accuracy alone does not determine the error rate among served answers. We introduce PriceCheck, which builds a compact family of decision rules from label-free checks such as re-solving a problem. Each check has a price: its agreement rates on correct and incorrect answers and its cost per run. Prices fitted on a small, class-enriched labelled set compose into predictions of a schedule's coverage and cost, guiding which checks to run and when to stop. A calibration test then selects a schedule at a stated selective-risk target. In mathematics, the selected schedules serve 76.1% of answers on average and keep held-out selective risk below 1.5% on all 15 splits. Under the shared testing protocol, PriceCheck serves more answers at that target than reward models, a prompted judge, the generator's confidence and a trained correctness classifier. At matched coverage, it keeps the fewest wrong answers among these scorers. Across 118 diagnostic schedules, price-based coverage predictions have a rank correlation of 0.97 with observed coverage. These results show that choosing how checks are combined and stopped matters alongside how well a verifier ranks answers. Code is available at https://github.com/js-lee-AI/PriceCheck.