REVIEW 2 cited by
Conformal Prediction under Levy-Prokhorov Distribution Shifts: Robustness to Local and Global Perturbations
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Conformal prediction provides a powerful framework for constructing prediction intervals with finite-sample guarantees, yet its robustness under distribution shifts remains a significant challenge. This paper addresses this limitation by modeling distribution shifts using Levy-Prokhorov (LP) ambiguity sets, which capture both local and global perturbations. We provide a self-contained overview of LP ambiguity sets and their connections to popular metrics such as Wasserstein and Total Variation. We show that the link between conformal prediction and LP ambiguity sets is a natural one: by propagating the LP ambiguity set through the scoring function, we reduce complex high-dimensional distribution shifts to manageable one-dimensional distribution shifts, enabling exact quantification of worst-case quantiles and coverage. Building on this analysis, we construct robust conformal prediction intervals that remain valid under distribution shifts, explicitly linking LP parameters to interval width and confidence levels. Experimental results on real-world datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Coverage Guarantees for Pseudo-Calibrated Conformal Prediction under Distribution Shift
Pseudo-calibrated conformal prediction retains target coverage above 1-α - source ramp loss - Lipschitz constant × shift magnitude, and an uncertainty-tuned slack can restore coverage.
-
From Calibration to Collaboration: LLM Uncertainty Quantification Should Be More Human-Centered
LLM uncertainty quantification should be judged by whether it improves real human decisions, not by calibration scores on trivia benchmarks.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.