This work formalizes update promotion as certified paired risk-difference auditing as well as building DISCERN, a sequential two-tier protocol that proves finite-sample validity and matching label-complexity bounds of order rho^2/eps^2 at the rate level.
Abstract
Every production model is updated, by retraining, fine-tuning, quantization, or a silent vendor swap, and each update risks being worse than what it replaced. We formalize update promotion as certified paired risk-difference auditing. Our starting point is a support identity: the risk difference between two models lives on the inputs where they disagree, observable without labels. We build DISCERN, a sequential two-tier protocol. A zero-label tier certifies benign updates whose disagreement rate is below tolerance from unlabeled traffic alone. An audited tier labels only sampled disagreements through an anytime-valid confidence sequence, valid at every stopping time and under any label-routing rule, even an adversarial judge. We prove finite-sample validity and matching label-complexity bounds of order rho^2/eps^2 at the rate level, so exploiting free disagreement provably saves a factor 1/rho over any pairing-blind auditor, and the guarantee composes across an unbounded sequence of promotions from one error budget. Across 14,000+ replayed audit streams over 785 update pairs, including LoRA fine-tunes of language models up to 1.4B parameters, miscoverage is 0.0002 (nominal 5%), power 0.986 with zero false alarms, and 56% of benign updates certify with zero labels. Each audit emits a machine-checkable evidence record for post-market monitoring.
This work introduces Audit-First VAPO, which separates discrete directional admission from continuous magnitude control, and evaluates two models on two reasoning benchmarks against static RLVR, matched-random selection, confidence thresholding, noise correction, and verifier augmentation.
Miao-Bo Hu, Shu-Hao Hu, Xiao-Bo Guo et al.· 0 citations
Portfolio vigilance is proposed, a sequential certifier mixing a betting expert guided by history with one that learns only from current labels; history affects only how it bets, so validity holds for any history.
Joyanta J. Mondal, Mridul Banik, Md. Shifatul Ahsan Apurba et al.· 0 citations
A conformal abstention certificate for text-to-SQL is only as truthful as the correctness labels it is calibrated on. The uncertainty pipelines that read confidence off execution consistency take those labels from the single database a benchmark ships, an oracle known to be lenient. We run a preregistered intervention...
Jia-Miao Liu, De-Wen Qiao, Yu Zhang et al.· 0 citations
Conformal Privacy Auditing is introduced, a distribution-free calibration framework that provides a statistical certificate of re-identification risk for each released document against LLM-empowered adversaries and enables audits of open-source models and proprietary API models in a unified framework.
Shuo Huang, G. Haffari, Xing-Liang Yuan et al.· 0 citations
We formalize slate recommendation as a randomized score learner followed by deterministic selection. First, an appropriately scoped differential-privacy guarantee passes through selection and its audit trace by post-processing. End-to-end privacy holds only when selector inputs are public or independent, previous priva...
Sam Urmian, Qin-Yi Liu, Mohammad Khalil· Proceedings of the 20th ACM...· 0 citations
This case shows how evaluation-design validity can be checked structurally before model inference and why base correctness does not determine intervention-response fidelity.
Jun Luo, Ning Huang, Zi-Qi Sha et al.· 0 citations