Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Aerial Image Classification in Scarce and Unconstrained Environments via Conformal Prediction

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Split-conformal prediction delivers calibrated, small prediction sets on scarce, unconstrained aerial imagery, and temperature scaling does not reliably shrink them.

desk verdict Useful empirical benchmark of conformal prediction on a scarce aerial dataset, but the coverage guarantee is unproven because temperature scaling is fitted on the same calibration set used for the quantile. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17655 v1 pith:SZ6CHPY4 submitted 2025-04-24 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CVstat.ML

Farhad Pourkamali-Anaraki This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CVstat.ML
keywords conformalpredictionsetsaerialimageclassificationtemperaturescalinguncertaintyquantificationtransferlearningeventrecognitioncoverageguarantee
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether conformal prediction—a post-hoc procedure that turns a classifier's scores into a set of labels guaranteed to contain the true label with probability at least $1-\alpha$—still delivers on that promise when training data are scarce and images are visually messy. Using a seven-class subset of an aerial event-recognition dataset, with only 386 training and 261 calibration images per trial, it tests three nonconformity scores (LAC, APS, and RAPS) on small fine-tuned pretrained classifiers. The paper's central finding is that even the lightest model and the simplest score produce informative prediction sets: LAC on MobileNet attains the nominal 80% or 90% coverage with median set sizes around 1.1 and 1.7, respectively, while APS and RAPS over-cover with sets of two to three labels. A second finding is that temperature scaling does not consistently improve efficiency—it shrinks sets when the fitted temperature is below one and enlarges them when it is above one, as happened with ResNet.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is split-conformal prediction built on a nonconformity score. On a calibration set $D_{\mathrm{cal}}$, one computes scores $s(x_i,y_i)$, takes $\hat{q}$ as the $\lceil(n+1)(1-\alpha)\rceil/n$ empirical quantile of those scores, and outputs $C(x)=\{y\in\mathcal{Y}:s(x,y)\le\hat{q}\}$. Three scores are compared: LAC uses $1-\pi_y(x)$, the softmax probability of the true class; APS accumulates sorted softmax probabilities up to the true class's rank; RAPS adds a rank penalty $\lambda(L_y-k_{\mathrm{reg}})_+$ to that cumulative sum. Temperature scaling enters by replacing logits $z_c(x)$ with $z_c(x)/T$ before the softmax. The paper's empirical point is that the direction of the temperature adjustment matters: $T<1$ sharpens the distribution and shrinks prediction sets, while $T>1$ softens it and enlarges them, which is why temperature scaling helped MobileNet and DenseNet but hurt ResNet.

What would settle it

Rerun the 50-trial MobileNet/LAC pipeline but split $D_{\mathrm{cal}}$ into two disjoint parts, fitting the temperature on one part and computing the conformal quantile on the other, then compare empirical coverage with the reported numbers. If coverage falls below the nominal $1-\alpha$, the reported validity depends on tuning and thresholding on the same calibration set; if coverage holds with similarly small sets, the double use is harmless.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that split-conformal prediction, applied post hoc to a fine-tuned pretrained classifier, gives statistically valid and practically informative prediction sets on a seven-class subset of the ERA aerial event dataset, even though only a few hundred labeled images are available and the scenes are highly variable. In 50 repeated trials, the LAC score on a lightweight MobileNet attained the nominal 0.8 and 0.9 coverage levels with average prediction-set sizes of roughly 1.1 and 1.7, while the APS and RAPS scores systematically exceeded the nominal coverage, reaching about 0.90 at $\alpha=0.2$ and 0.95 at $\alpha=0.1$, with larger sets between roughly 1.7 and 2.8. The paper also contends that temperature scaling is not a reliable way to reduce set size: optimizing $T$ on the calibration set shrank sets for MobileNet and DenseNet, whose fitted temperatures were below one, and enlarged them for ResNet, whose fitted temperatures were above one. The conclusion is that in this scarce-data regime, simple scores and compact models are sufficient for useful uncertainty quantification, and that calibration choices rather than backbone capacity drive the trade-off between coverage and set size.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that tuning the temperature parameter on the calibration set and then computing the conformal quantile from that same calibration set preserves the exchangeability on which split-conformal coverage guarantees rest.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A lightweight classifier and the LAC score can deliver prediction sets with average size near 1.1 at 80% coverage and near 1.7 at 90% coverage on this seven-class task, so single-label deployment can be augmented with a small uncertainty set at little compute cost.
  • Temperature scaling should be evaluated per architecture: it reduces set sizes when the fitted $T$ is below one (MobileNet, DenseNet) and increases them when $T$ is above one (ResNet), so it is not a universally beneficial calibration step.
  • Because APS and RAPS systematically over-cover while LAC tracks the nominal level, users who must not miss the true label may prefer the adaptive scores even at the price of larger sets.
  • The coverage and set-size results are similar across classifiers that differ by an order of magnitude in parameters, indicating that the calibration stage, not the backbone, governs the reliability-efficiency trade-off in this regime.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension the paper does not run: split $D_{\mathrm{cal}}$ so that $T$ is fitted on one half and the conformal quantile on the other, separating the effect of temperature scaling from the finite-sample coverage guarantee.
  • Because the paper finds that $T<1$ sharpens scores and shrinks sets while $T>1$ softens and enlarges them, one could optimize $T$ directly for expected set size subject to coverage instead of for calibration cross-entropy and measure whether the efficiency gain persists.
  • The authors' suggested direction on noisy labels could be quantified by injecting label noise into the calibration set at increasing rates and tracking coverage and set size for LAC versus APS and RAPS, since the adaptive scores rely differently on rank information.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an empirical evaluation of split-conformal prediction methods—LAC, APS, and RAPS—on a seven-class subset of the ERA aerial video dataset. The author fine-tunes three pretrained CNNs (MobileNetV2, DenseNet-121, ResNet-152) on a small training set (386 samples), uses a calibration set of 261 samples, and a test set of 112 samples, repeating the full pipeline over 50 random splits. Two calibration pipelines are compared: one with and one without temperature scaling. The main empirical findings are that LAC yields small prediction sets roughly at the nominal coverage, APS and RAPS exceed the nominal coverage with larger sets, and temperature scaling does not consistently reduce set size, sometimes increasing it for ResNet. The paper concludes that conformal prediction can provide useful uncertainty estimates in data-scarce, unconstrained environments even with lightweight models and simple nonconformity scores, and it advocates for future work on noisy labels and model compression.

Significance. If the empirical results are valid, the paper offers a useful and realistic benchmark for conformal prediction in a data-scarce remote-sensing setting. The repeated random splits, the comparison of three architectures, and the use of a public dataset are strengths. The observation that temperature scaling can increase set size for some architectures is practically relevant. However, the central validity claim is currently undermined by the reuse of the calibration set for both temperature fitting and conformal quantile computation, so the reported coverage numbers are not protected by the finite-sample conformal guarantee. Reproducibility is also weakened by the omission of RAPS hyperparameters. The paper does not provide code, though the use of public libraries (MAPIE, skorch) partially mitigates this concern.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4 (TS calibration) and Section 2, Eq. (10)] The temperature parameter T is optimized by minimizing cross-entropy on Dcal, and the same Dcal is then used to compute the nonconformity scores and the conformal quantile. Split-conformal validity (Eq. 5) requires the score function to be fixed independently of the calibration data. Because T is fitted to the labels in Dcal, the calibration scores are not exchangeable with test scores, so the finite-sample coverage guarantee asserted in the abstract and Section 2 is not valid. The paper notes in Section 2 that temperature scaling 'often shares the same calibration dataset Dcal' but does not address the consequences. This is especially concerning for LAC at α=0.2, where mean coverage is 0.81±0.05 and the first quartile falls below 0.8 (Table 1, Fig. 3a); a bias from fitting T on Dcal could move true coverage below the nominal level. The authors should either reserve a separate held-out subset of Dcal for temperature fitting or explicitly state that the coverage results are heuristic and not protected by split-conformal theory.
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (9); Section 4 experiments] The RAPS score in Eq. (9) depends on two hyperparameters, the regularization strength λ and the cutoff rank k_reg. These values are never reported, nor is the selection procedure described, in the experimental section. Because RAPS prediction set sizes and coverage can vary substantially with λ and k_reg, the RAPS results in Tables 1–2 and the qualitative comparison with LAC/APS are not reproducible without this information. The authors should state the parameter values used (or the default choices made by the MAPIE library) and, ideally, justify them.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, category list] 'ßConstructing' appears to be a typo for 'Constructing'.
  2. [Section 2, text after Eq. (10)] 'the the highest-logit class' contains a duplicated article.
  3. [Abstract and Section 5] The claim that the results 'highlight the significant potential of model compression techniques' is not directly supported by the experiments, since no compression or distillation is performed; the paper only compares architectures of different sizes. This wording should be softened or supported by additional experiments.
  4. [General] No code or data availability statement is provided; releasing the pipeline would aid reproducibility.
  5. [Tables 1 and 2] The paper does not perform any statistical significance testing for the difference in set sizes with and without temperature scaling; a paired test across the 50 splits would make the claim that temperature scaling has an inconsistent effect more rigorous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is an empirical benchmark whose claims are measured against an external dataset, with no load-bearing self-citation or fit-renamed-as-prediction step.

full rationale

The paper does not claim to derive predictions from first principles; all reported quantities are measured from repeated train/calibration/test splits of the ERA dataset. The conformal coverage bound in Eq. (5) is standard theory applied as a benchmark, and the coverage and set-size numbers in Tables 1-2 and Figure 3 are empirical outcomes rather than conclusions obtained by equating inputs with outputs. The author's self-citations ([17], [18], [26]-[29]) appear in general context or future-work suggestions and do not supply any load-bearing premise; in particular, the nonconformity scores (LAC, APS, RAPS) and the split-conformal procedure are attributed to standard external references. The only notable methodological issue, fitting temperature T on the same Dcal later used for the conformal quantile (Section 4: 'The value of T is optimized by minimizing the cross-entropy loss on the calibration set Dcal'), is a potential violation of the exchangeability assumption supporting the finite-sample guarantee, and therefore a validity/correctness concern about the empirical numbers, but it is not a circularity of reasoning: the paper does not define its conclusion in terms of that assumption. No step reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No invented entities. The free parameters are calibration hyperparameters rather than theoretical constants. The key implicit assumption is that fitting temperature on Dcal does not invalidate the conformal coverage guarantee.

free parameters (2)
  • Temperature scaling T = varies per trial; less than 1 for MobileNet and DenseNet, greater than 1 for ResNet
    Fitted on the calibration set by minimizing cross-entropy; used to rescale logits in Equation (10), directly affecting prediction set sizes.
  • RAPS regularization lambda and cutoff kreg = not reported
    Equation (9) requires these hyperparameters; without reporting them, the RAPS set sizes cannot be reproduced or interpreted fully.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Exchangeability of calibration and test splits
    Invoked in Section 2 for the conformal guarantee; maintained by random re-splitting across trials, but broken for exact coverage if temperature is fit on the same calibration data.
  • domain assumption Single middle frame represents the event
    Section 3 uses only the middle frame of each five-second video for classification, ignoring temporal information.
  • domain assumption Pretrained ImageNet features transfer to aerial imagery
    Section 3 freezes MobileNet, DenseNet, and ResNet features and fine-tunes only the final layer, assuming the frozen features are useful for aerial event recognition.
  • domain assumption ERA labels are correct
    Section 3 treats the human-annotated labels as ground truth; noisy labels are explicitly deferred to future work in Section 5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Aerial Image Classification in Scarce and Unconstrained Environments via Conformal Prediction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SZ6CHPY4

@misc{pith2026250417655,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Aerial Image Classification in Scarce and Unconstrained Environments via Conformal Prediction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SZ6CHPY4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17655}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents a comprehensive empirical analysis of conformal prediction methods on a challenging aerial image dataset featuring diverse events in unconstrained environments. Conformal prediction is a powerful post-hoc technique that takes the output of any classifier and transforms it into a set of likely labels, providing a statistical guarantee on the coverage of the true label. Unlike evaluations on standard benchmarks, our study addresses the complexities of data-scarce and highly variable real-world settings. We investigate the effectiveness of leveraging pretrained models (MobileNet, DenseNet, and ResNet), fine-tuned with limited labeled data, to generate informative prediction sets. To further evaluate the impact of calibration, we consider two parallel pipelines (with and without temperature scaling) and assess performance using two key metrics: empirical coverage and average prediction set size. This setup allows us to systematically examine how calibration choices influence the trade-off between reliability and efficiency. Our findings demonstrate that even with relatively small labeled samples and simple nonconformity scores, conformal prediction can yield valuable uncertainty estimates for complex tasks. Moreover, our analysis reveals that while temperature scaling is often employed for calibration, it does not consistently lead to smaller prediction sets, underscoring the importance of careful consideration in its application. Furthermore, our results highlight the significant potential of model compression techniques within the conformal prediction pipeline for deployment in resource-constrained environments. Based on our observations, we advocate for future research to delve into the impact of noisy or ambiguous labels on conformal prediction performance and to explore effective model reduction strategies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17655 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustrating the overall pipeline used in this work to evaluate the effectiveness of calibra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Four representative images from each of the seven categories used in this study are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. This helps assess the robustness of each method to variability in the dataset partitioning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Boxplots of coverage scores and prediction set sizes across 50 independent trials using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histogram plots of the optimized temperature parameter values during the calibration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Three test images are shown with their true labels and the corresponding prediction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abdar, F

    M. Abdar, F. Pourpanah, S. Hussain, D. Rezazadegan, L. Liu, M. Ghavamzadeh, P. Fieguth, X. Cao, A. Khosravi, R. Acharya, V. Makarenkov, and S. Nahavandi. A review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges.Information Fusion, 76:243–297, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Angelopoulos and S

    A. Angelopoulos and S. Bates. Conformal prediction: A gentle introduction. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning , 16(4):494–591, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Angelopoulos, S

    A. Angelopoulos, S. Bates, J. Malik, and M. Jordan. Uncertainty sets for image classifiers using conformal prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.14193 , 2020

    arXiv 2009

  4. [4]

    Arulananth, S

    T. Arulananth, S. Prakash, R. Ayyasamy, V. Kavitha, P. Kuppusamy, and P. Chinnasamy. Classification of paediatric pneumonia using modified densenet-121 deep-learning model. IEEE Access, pages 35716–35727, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Astigarraga, A

    M. Astigarraga, A. S´ anchez-Ruiz, and G. Colmenarejo. Conformal prediction-based machine learning in cheminformatics: Current applications and new challenges. Artificial Intelligence in the Life Sciences , page 100127, 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Balanya, J

    S. Balanya, J. Maro˜ nas, and D. Ramos. Adaptive temperature scaling for robust calibration of deep neural networks. Neural Computing and Applications , 36(14):8073–8095, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Barber, E

    R. Barber, E. Candes, A. Ramdas, and R. Tibshirani. Conformal prediction beyond ex- changeability. The Annals of Statistics , 51(2):816–845, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Barber and R

    R. Barber and R. Tibshirani. Unifying different theories of conformal prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02292, 2025. 14

    arXiv 2025

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Bashir, M

    M. Bashir, M. Ahmad, D. Rizvi, and A. El-Latif. Efficient CNN-based disaster events classification using UAV-aided images for emergency response application.Neural Computing and Applications, 36(18):10599–10612, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Corbi` ere, N

    C. Corbi` ere, N. Thome, A. Bar-Hen, M. Cord, and P. P´ erez. Addressing failure prediction by learning model confidence. Advances in Neural Information Processing systems , 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    Cordier, V

    T. Cordier, V. Blot, L. Lacombe, T. Morzadec, A. Capitaine, and N. Brunel. Flexible and Systematic Uncertainty Estimation with Conformal Prediction via the MAPIE library. In Conformal and Probabilistic Prediction with Applications , 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Dabah and T

    L. Dabah and T. Tirer. On temperature scaling and conformal prediction of deep classifiers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05806 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Einbinder, S

    B. Einbinder, S. Feldman, S. Bates, A. Angelopoulos, A. Gendler, and Y. Romano. Label noise robustness of conformal prediction. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 25(328):1– 66, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    J. Gou, B. Yu, S. J Maybank, and D. Tao. Knowledge distillation: A survey. International Journal of Computer Vision , 129(6):1789–1819, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Gundersen, K

    O. Gundersen, K. Coakley, C. Kirkpatrick, and Y. Gil. Sources of irreproducibility in machine learning: A review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.07610 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    C. Guo, G. Pleiss, Y. Sun, and K. Weinberger. On calibration of modern neural networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 1321–1330, 2017

    2017

  9. [17]

    Hajibabaee, F

    P. Hajibabaee, F. Pourkamali-Anaraki, and M. Hariri-Ardebili. Dimensionality reduction techniques in structural and earthquake engineering. Engineering Structures, 278:115485, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Hajibabaee, F

    P. Hajibabaee, F. Pourkamali-Anaraki, and M. Hariri-Ardebili. Adaptive conformal predic- tion intervals using data-dependent weights with application to seismic response prediction. IEEE Access, 12:53579–53597, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    J. Kaur, M. Jordan, and A. Alaa. Conformal prediction sets with improved conditional coverage using trust scores. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.10139 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Khoee, Y

    A. Khoee, Y. Yu, and R. Feldt. Domain generalization through meta-learning: A survey. Artificial Intelligence Review, 57(10):285, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    C. Liu, Y. Dong, W. Xiang, X. Yang, H. Su, J. Zhu, Y. Chen, Y. He, H. Xue, and S. Zheng. A comprehensive study on robustness of image classification models: Benchmarking and rethinking. International Journal of Computer Vision , 133(2):567–589, 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    Minderer, J

    M. Minderer, J. Djolonga, R. Romijnders, F. Hubis, X. Zhai, N. Houlsby, D. Tran, and M. Lu- cic. Revisiting the calibration of modern neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:15682–15694, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Mossina, J

    L. Mossina, J. Dalmau, and L. And´ eol. Conformal semantic image segmentation: Post-hoc quantification of predictive uncertainty. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 3574–3584, 2024. 15

    2024

  16. [24]

    L. Mou, Y. Hua, P. Jin, and X. Zhu. ERA: A data set and deep learning benchmark for event recognition in aerial videos [software and data sets]. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, 8(4):125–133, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Oliveira, P

    R. Oliveira, P. Orenstein, T. Ramos, and J. Romano. Split conformal prediction and non- exchangeable data. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 25(225):1–38, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Pourkamali-Anaraki and W

    F. Pourkamali-Anaraki and W. Bennette. Adaptive data compression for classification prob- lems. IEEE Access, 9:157654–157669, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Pourkamali-Anaraki and M

    F. Pourkamali-Anaraki and M. Hariri-Ardebili. Neural networks and imbalanced learning for data-driven scientific computing with uncertainties. IEEE Access, 9:15334–15350, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Pourkamali-Anaraki, T

    F. Pourkamali-Anaraki, T. Nasrin, R. Jensen, A. Peterson, and C. Hansen. Evaluation of classification models in limited data scenarios with application to additive manufacturing. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence , 126:106983, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Pourkamali-Anaraki, T

    F. Pourkamali-Anaraki, T. Nasrin, R. Jensen, A. Peterson, and C. Hansen. Adaptive acti- vation functions for predictive modeling with sparse experimental data. Neural Computing and Applications, 36(29):18297–18311, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    H. Ravi, C. Scott, D. Soudry, and Y. Wang. The implicit bias of gradient descent on separable multiclass data. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:81324–81359, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Romano, M

    Y. Romano, M. Sesia, and E. Candes. Classification with valid and adaptive coverage. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 33:3581–3591, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Sadinle, J

    M. Sadinle, J. Lei, and L. Wasserman. Least ambiguous set-valued classifiers with bounded error levels. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 114(525):223–234, 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    Sandler, A

    M. Sandler, A. Howard, M. Zhu, A. Zhmoginov, and L. Chen. Mobilenetv2: Inverted residuals and linear bottlenecks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4510–4520, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Semmelrock, T

    H. Semmelrock, T. Ross-Hellauer, S. Kopeinik, D. Theiler, A. Haberl, S. Thalmann, and Do. Kowald. Reproducibility in machine-learning-based research: Overview, barriers, and drivers. AI Magazine, 46(2):e70002, 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    Shafer and V

    G. Shafer and V. Vovk. A tutorial on conformal prediction. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9(12):371–421, 2008

    2008

  28. [36]

    Singh, G

    G. Singh, G. Moncrieff, Z. Venter, K. Cawse-Nicholson, J. Slingsby, and T. Robinson. Uncer- tainty quantification for probabilistic machine learning in earth observation using conformal prediction. Scientific Reports, 14(1):16166, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Singla, E

    S. Singla, E. Wallace, S. Feng, and S. Feizi. Understanding impacts of high-order loss approximations and features in deep learning interpretation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5848–5856, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    Soloff, R

    J. Soloff, R. Barber, and R. Willett. Building a stable classifier with the inflated argmax. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 37:70349–70380, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Stanton, W

    S. Stanton, W. Maddox, and A. Wilson. Bayesian optimization with conformal prediction sets. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages 959–986, 2023. 16

    2023

  32. [40]

    S. Sun, W. Ren, J. Li, R. Wang, and X. Cao. Logit standardization in knowledge distillation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 15731–15740, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    X. Sun, B. Wang, Z. Wang, H. Li, H. Li, and K. Fu. Research progress on few-shot learning for remote sensing image interpretation. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , 14:2387–2402, 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Tibshirani

    R. Tibshirani. Conformal prediction. UC Berkeley, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Tietz, T

    M. Tietz, T. Fan, D. Nouri, B. Bossan, and skorch Developers. skorch: A scikit-learn compatible neural network library that wraps PyTorch , July 2017

    2017

  36. [44]

    Z. Wu, C. Shen, and A. Van Den Hengel. Wider or deeper: Revisiting the resnet model for visual recognition. Pattern Recognition, 90:119–133, 2019

    2019

  37. [45]

    Wuepper, W

    D. Wuepper, W. Oluoch, and H. Hadi. Satellite data in agricultural and environmental economics: Theory and practice. Agricultural Economics, page e70006, 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    H. Xi, J. Huang, L. Feng, and H. Wei. Does confidence calibration help conformal prediction? arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04344 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Yuksekgonul, L

    M. Yuksekgonul, L. Zhang, J. Zou, and C. Guestrin. Beyond confidence: Reliable mod- els should also consider atypicality. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36:38420–38453, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    Zargarbashi, S

    S. Zargarbashi, S. Antonelli, and A. Bojchevski. Conformal prediction sets for graph neural networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 12292–12318, 2023

    2023

  41. [49]

    H. Zeng, K. Liu, B. Jing, and H. Wei. Parametric scaling law of tuning bias in conformal prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.03023 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    X. Zhou, B. Chen, Y. Gui, and L. Cheng. Conformal prediction: A data perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06494, 2024. 17

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.