Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 72 references

CP4SBI: Local Conformal Calibration of Credible Sets in Simulation-Based Inference

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Reinterpreting Bayesian scores as conformity scores, this paper constructs credible sets with finite-sample local coverage guarantees for any simulation-based posterior estimator.

desk verdict Useful plug-in calibration for SBI credible sets, but the LoCart variant's finite-sample local guarantee as stated does not cover the experiment as run. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.17077 v3 pith:CP4ZCOA4 submitted 2025-08-23 stat.ML cs.LG

Luben M. C. Cabezas , Vagner S. Santos , Thiago R. Ramos , Pedro L. C. Rodrigues , Rafael Izbicki This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MLcs.LG
keywords simulation-basedinferenceconformalpredictioncrediblesetslocalcoverageconditionalposteriorcalibrationnormalizingflowsdiffusionmodels
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

The paper argues that miscalibration in simulation-based inference is fixable without retraining the simulator or the posterior: any Bayesian score used to define credible sets can be treated as a conformal score. It develops two wrappers, LoCart and CDF, that turn a possibly overconfident posterior approximation into credible sets with nominal coverage. LoCart partitions the data space with a regression tree and calibrates within each leaf, giving finite-sample local coverage. CDF maps scores through an estimated conditional CDF, giving asymptotic conditional coverage as training, calibration, and Monte Carlo sizes grow. If correct, these guarantees give experimental scientists a model-agnostic way to obtain honest, observation-specific uncertainty from neural posterior estimators, diffusion models, or flow-matching posteriors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Bayesian conformity score $s(\theta; x)$, any function whose sublevel sets define a credible region and which now feeds into conformal calibration. LoCart CP4SBI uses a regression tree that predicts $s$ from $x$ to partition the data space into cells where the score distribution is approximately homogeneous; within each cell, split-conformal quantiles are computed from calibration scores in that cell, which is what yields finite-sample local coverage. CDF CP4SBI instead transforms the score through an estimate of its conditional CDF, $\hat{F}_M(s(\theta; x) \mid x)$, obtained by Monte Carlo from posterior draws; the probability integral transform makes the transformed score close to uniform conditional on $x$, so a single global quantile of the transformed calibration scores suffices for asymptotic conditional coverage.

What would settle it

Run the implemented LoCart CP4SBI on a benchmark with a known posterior, using the paper's same-data tree fitting and per-leaf calibration, then measure empirical coverage within each leaf over many held-out test pairs; if any leaf's coverage falls below $1-\alpha$ by more than binomial sampling error, the finite-sample local guarantee as implemented is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the scoring function defining a Bayesian credible region, such as the negative posterior density for HPD regions, is already a valid nonconformity score, so the conformal calibration toolkit transfers directly to simulation-based inference. For the LoCart variant, the paper proves that once the regression-tree partition is fixed, per-leaf conformal quantiles yield $P(\theta \in C_{\mathrm{locart}}(X) \mid X \in A_j) \ge 1-\alpha$ as well as marginal coverage $P(\theta \in C_{\mathrm{locart}}(X)) \ge 1-\alpha$. For the CDF variant, it proves that the transformed score $s'(\theta; x) = \hat{F}_M(s(\theta; x) \mid x)$ becomes approximately uniform conditional on $x$ as the posterior estimator, calibration set, and number of posterior draws grow, so $P(\theta \in C_{\mathrm{cdf}}(X) \mid X = x) \to 1-\alpha$. Empirically, both variants improve conditional calibration over global conformal, self-calibration, and HDR baselines while keeping marginal coverage near the nominal level, across ten standard SBI benchmarks and for both normalizing-flow and score-diffusion posterior estimators.

Load-bearing premise

The finite-sample local coverage guarantee assumes the regression tree that defines the local regions is fitted on data separate from the scores used for calibration, but the paper's implementation fits the tree and calibrates on the same data, so that strict guarantee does not apply to the reported experiments; the CDF variant additionally assumes the posterior estimator converges to the true posterior in KL divergence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any SBI method, whether density-based like NPE or sample-based like diffusion and flow matching, can be wrapped to output credible sets with nominal marginal coverage at finite sample.
  • LoCart CP4SBI adapts region width to inference difficulty: easy observations land in leaves with tight thresholds, difficult ones in leaves with wider thresholds, instead of one global cutoff.
  • CDF CP4SBI approaches observation-specific conditional coverage as the posterior approximation improves and the calibration budget grows, making amortized posteriors usable for per-observation inference.
  • The framework works with any scoring function, so users can choose HPD, symmetric, quantile-based, or custom credible sets without changing the calibration machinery.
  • Across ten standard SBI benchmarks, both variants improve conditional coverage (lower MAE) over global conformal, self-calibration, and HDR while keeping marginal coverage close to $1-\alpha$; the CDF variant is especially strong with small calibration budgets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because CP4SBI only recalibrates a score, it cannot sharpen a weak posterior: two estimators with the same contour ordering but different density sharpness yield the same regions, so users should read CP4SBI regions as coverage-correct but not as evidence of posterior accuracy.
  • A direct test of the CDF variant's assumption would be to take a deliberately misspecified posterior estimator, measure the conditional coverage of CDF CP4SBI, and check whether the coverage gap tracks the KL divergence between approximate and true posterior as the paper's Pinsker bound predicts.
  • The same score-CDF transform could be applied recursively, estimating the conditional CDF of the already-recalibrated scores and conformalizing again, to push conditional coverage closer to nominal with the same calibration budget.
  • Because the LoCart partition is itself a model of where score distributions change, the learned leaf structure could double as a diagnostic that tells scientists for which types of observations the posterior estimator is least reliable.
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 CP4SBI, a conformal calibration framework for constructing credible regions in simulation-based inference (SBI). It proposes two variants: LoCart CP4SBI, which partitions the data space using a regression tree and applies conformal quantile calibration within leaves, and CDF CP4SBI, which transforms conformity scores by an estimated conditional CDF. The paper claims finite-sample local coverage for LoCart and asymptotic conditional coverage for CDF, and reports experiments on ten SBI benchmarks using normalizing-flow and score-diffusion posterior estimators.

Significance. If the theoretical guarantees were fully matched by the implementation, CP4SBI would provide a broadly useful, model-agnostic post-hoc calibration layer for SBI, applicable to both density-based and sample-based posterior estimators. The paper's strengths include the simple conformal machinery, the breadth of supported scoring functions, the extension to sample-based models via kernel density approximations, and the release of code for reproducibility. However, the central finite-sample local coverage claim for LoCart CP4SBI is not realized in the experiments because the implementation omits the train/calibration split on which the proof relies, and the CDF variant's asymptotic guarantee depends on a strong, unverified KL-consistency assumption.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, Section 4.1, Appendix B.1] The implementation of LoCart CP4SBI omits the train/calibration split that Theorem 4.1 requires. In Section 3, after describing the LoCart variant, the text states: 'While marginal coverage guarantees theoretically require splitting the data into training and calibration sets, we omit this step in practice, as it has minimal empirical impact on coverage.' In contrast, the proof of Theorem 4.1 (Appendix B.1) invokes standard conformal arguments 'within each region,' which require the partition to be fixed independently of the calibration scores used to compute leaf-specific quantiles. Algorithm 1 does include a split, but Section 5 does not state that this split was used in the experiments, and the caption of Figure 3 shows the split in the illustration only. Consequently, the finite-sample local coverage guarantee advertised in the abstract and contribution list is not supported for the evaluated implementation; the coverage reported in Figures 7 and 8 is empirical and is not backed by Theorem 4.1. The asymptotic result in Theorem 4.2 inherits this gap because it builds on the finite-sample guarantee. This is a load-bearing issue for the paper's central claim, not a presentation detail.
  2. [Theorem 4.4, Assumption B.1, Appendix B.2] The asymptotic conditional coverage of CDF CP4SBI rests on Assumption B.1, which posits that KL(bp_K(·|x) || p(·|x)) → 0 as the training size K grows. This assumption is not verified for the neural posterior estimators used in the experiments; for normalizing-flow NPE and diffusion-based NPSE, KL consistency has not been established for general SBI problems, and under model misspecification such estimators are known to converge to the best approximation in the family, not necessarily to the true posterior. The proof of Theorem B.2 correctly identifies the coverage gap as sqrt(delta_K(x)/2), but the paper does not discuss when Assumption B.1 is plausible in practice. As a result, the practical import of the 'asymptotic conditional coverage' claim for the CDF variant is weaker than the presentation in Section 1.2 suggests. The paper should state explicitly the limitations of this assumption and ideally include an empirical diagnostic (e.g., a coverage plot against K) for the benchmarks where the posterior estimator is known to be misspecified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1] There is a typo: 'refered to as marginal coverage' should be 'referred to as marginal coverage.'
  2. [Theorem 4.1 vs. Algorithm 1] Theorem 4.1 defines the conformal threshold t_{1-alpha}(x) as the (1-alpha) quantile of scores, while Algorithm 1 computes the empirical (1 + 1/|I_j|)(1-alpha) quantile. The standard finite-sample corrected quantile is what actually guarantees coverage at level 1-alpha; please reconcile the notation in the theorem with the algorithm.
  3. [Section 5.3, Figures 7 and 8] The text states that experiments run on ten SBI benchmarks, but Figures 7 and 8 list only nine benchmark labels, with 'sir slcp' appearing as a single label that seems to merge the separate SIR and SLCP tasks listed in Table 1. Please check the benchmark count and the labels for consistency.
  4. [Section 5.3 and Figures 7-9] The experiments report only coverage metrics (conditional MAE and marginal coverage). Since conformal methods can trivially achieve coverage by producing very wide regions, it would be informative to also report the average size or volume of the constructed credible regions, to confirm that the improved coverage is not obtained at the cost of efficiency.
  5. [Section 1.2 and Theorem 4.4] The contribution bullet says CDF CP4SBI 'achieves asymptotic conditional coverage as the estimate bp(theta|x) gets closer to the true posterior.' This is imprecise: the precise condition is the KL convergence of Assumption B.1, not merely a vague notion of closeness. The paper would benefit from stating the assumption already in the introduction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: CP4SBI's coverage guarantees are standard conformal consequences of exchangeability; the self-citations are to independent prior work, and the train/calibration split omission is a validity gap, not a circular one.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. LoCart CP4SBI computes leaf-specific empirical quantiles of calibration scores; Theorem 4.1 is the standard conformal argument applied within each fixed partition cell, and marginal validity follows by total probability. CDF CP4SBI applies conformal prediction to the transformed score s' = Fhat(s|x); Theorem 4.3 is again the standard exchangeability argument, and Theorem 4.4 derives conditional coverage from the probability integral transform under Assumption B.1 (KL consistency of the posterior estimator). These results follow from the definitions of the scores and quantiles, not from the quantities being predicted. The self-citations to Cabezas et al. 2025a (LoCart, Theorems 2 and 5) and Dheur et al. 2025 (CDF-conformal score) reference published algorithms and theorems with stated assumptions, and the present paper does not define its outputs in terms of those citations, so no reduction-by-construction occurs. The one caveat worth flagging is Section 3's statement: 'While marginal coverage guarantees theoretically require splitting the data into training and calibration sets, we omit this step in practice.' This means the implemented no-split version may not satisfy the fixed-partition exchangeability condition required by Theorem 4.1, so the advertised finite-sample local guarantee does not strictly cover the experiments as run. That is a validity/exchangeability gap, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical or statistical entities. It rests on four stated or cited assumptions: exchangeability, KL consistency of the posterior estimator, split independence for the LoCart partition, and the unstated regularity conditions of the cited LoCart theorem. The two procedural hyperparameters (M and tree hyperparameters) do not affect the validity of the conformal guarantees but do affect efficiency and reported performance.

free parameters (3)
  • M (CDF Monte Carlo draws) = 1000
    Hand-chosen in Appendix C.3; affects the accuracy of the empirical CDF transform, not the marginal conformal guarantee.
  • LoCart min_samples_per_leaf = 300 (large budgets), 75 (small budget)
    Hand-chosen in Appendix C.3 to ensure populated leaves; a practical hyperparameter of the partition, not fitted to coverage.
  • ccp_alpha (cost-complexity pruning)
    Hand-chosen post-pruning parameter for the regression tree (Appendix C.3); it changes the geometry of the partition and thus the local calibration cells, but is not fitted to optimize coverage on a held-out set.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Exchangeability of calibration pairs and the test pair
    Required by Theorems 4.1 and 4.3; in SBI this follows from i.i.d. simulation from prior and simulator.
  • domain assumption Assumption B.1: KL(bp_K(·|x) || p(·|x)) → 0 as K → ∞, with absolute continuity
    Load-bearing for Theorem 4.4 (CDF CP4SBI asymptotic conditional coverage); can fail under misspecification or insufficient training.
  • domain assumption Independence of the regression-tree training data from the calibration data for finite-sample local coverage
    Theorem 4.1 requires the partition to be fixed before computing calibration quantiles; the paper's implementation omits the split in practice (Section 3), so the guarantee does not strictly apply to the experiments.
  • domain assumption Regularity conditions of Cabezas et al. [2025a, Theorem 5]
    Invoked in Theorem 4.2 and Appendix B.1 without being stated in this paper, so the asymptotic conditional coverage claim cannot be verified from the text alone.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CP4SBI: Local Conformal Calibration of Credible Sets in Simulation-Based Inference." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CP4ZCOA4

@misc{pith2026250817077,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CP4SBI: Local Conformal Calibration of Credible Sets in Simulation-Based Inference},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CP4ZCOA4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.17077}
}
abstract

Current experimental scientists have been increasingly relying on simulation-based inference (SBI) to invert complex non-linear models with intractable likelihoods. However, posterior approximations obtained with SBI are often miscalibrated, causing credible regions to undercover true parameters. We develop $\texttt{CP4SBI}$, a model-agnostic conformal calibration framework that constructs credible sets with local Bayesian coverage. Our two proposed variants, namely local calibration via regression trees and CDF-based calibration, enable finite-sample local coverage guarantees for any scoring function, including HPD, symmetric, and quantile-based regions. Experiments on widely used SBI benchmarks demonstrate that our approach improves the quality of uncertainty quantification for neural posterior estimators using both normalizing flows and score-diffusion modeling.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Conformal prediction: A gentle introduction

    Anastasios N Angelopoulos, Stephen Bates, et al. Conformal prediction: A gentle introduction. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning , 16 0 (4): 0 494--591, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Approximate Bayesian Computation with Deep Learning and Conformal prediction

    Meili Baragatti, Bertrand Cloez, David M \'e tivier, and Isabelle Sanchez. Approximate bayesian computation with deep learning and conformal prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04874, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Lappalainen, Bálint Mucsányi, Felix Pei, Auguste Schulz, Zinovia Stefanidi, Pedro Rodrigues, Cornelius Schröder, Faried Abu Zaid, Jonas Beck, Jaivardhan Kapoor, David S

    Jan Boelts, Michael Deistler, Manuel Gloeckler, Álvaro Tejero-Cantero, Jan-Matthis Lueckmann, Guy Moss, Peter Steinbach, Thomas Moreau, Fabio Muratore, Julia Linhart, Conor Durkan, Julius Vetter, Benjamin Kurt Miller, Maternus Herold, Abolfazl Ziaeemehr, Matthijs Pals, Theo Gruner, Sebastian Bischoff, Nastya Krouglova, Richard Gao, Janne K. Lappalainen, B...

    2025

  4. [4]

    Bayesian score calibration for approximate models

    Joshua J Bon, David J Warne, David J Nott, and Christopher Drovandi. Bayesian score calibration for approximate models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05357, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Mondrian conformal regressors

    Henrik Bostr \"o m and Ulf Johansson. Mondrian conformal regressors. In Conformal and Probabilistic Prediction and Applications, pages 114--133. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  6. [6]

    o m, Ulf Johansson, and Tuwe L \

    Henrik Bostr \"o m, Ulf Johansson, and Tuwe L \"o fstr \"o m. Mondrian conformal predictive distributions. In Conformal and Probabilistic Prediction and Applications, pages 24--38. PMLR, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Boucheron, G

    S. Boucheron, G. Lugosi, and P. Massart. Concentration Inequalities: A Nonasymptotic Theory of Independence. OUP Oxford, 2013. ISBN 9780199535255. URL https://books.google.com.br/books?id=koNqWRluhP0C

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Distribution-free calibration of statistical confidence sets

    Luben Cabezas, Guilherme P Soares, Thiago R Ramos, Rafael B Stern, and Rafael Izbicki. Distribution-free calibration of statistical confidence sets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19368, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Regression trees for fast and adaptive prediction intervals

    Luben MC Cabezas, Mateus P Otto, Rafael Izbicki, and Rafael B Stern. Regression trees for fast and adaptive prediction intervals. Information Sciences, 686: 0 121369, 2025 a

    2025

  2. [10]

    Epistemic uncertainty in conformal scores: A unified approach

    Luben Miguel Cruz Cabezas, Vagner Silva Santos, Thiago Ramos, and Rafael Izbicki. Epistemic uncertainty in conformal scores: A unified approach. In The 41st Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 2025 b

    2025

  3. [11]

    Trustworthy scientific inference for inverse problems with generative models

    James Carzon, Luca Masserano, Joshua D Ingram, Alex Shen, Antonio Carlos Herling Ribeiro Junior, Tommaso Dorigo, Michele Doro, Joshua S Speagle, Rafael Izbicki, and Ann B Lee. Trustworthy scientific inference for inverse problems with generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:25...

    2025

  4. [12]

    Statistical inference

    George Casella and Roger Berger. Statistical inference. CRC press, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Distributional conformal prediction

    Victor Chernozhukov, Kaspar W \"u thrich, and Yinchu Zhu. Distributional conformal prediction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118 0 (48), 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Ten quick tips for machine learning in computational biology

    Davide Chicco. Ten quick tips for machine learning in computational biology. BioData mining, 10 0 (1): 0 35, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Sampling-based multi-dimensional recalibration

    Youngseog Chung, Ian Char, and Jeff Schneider. Sampling-based multi-dimensional recalibration. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Approximating likelihood ratios with calibrated discriminative classifiers

    Kyle Cranmer, Juan Pavez, and Gilles Louppe. Approximating likelihood ratios with calibrated discriminative classifiers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.02169, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    The frontier of simulation-based inference

    Kyle Cranmer, Johann Brehmer, and Gilles Louppe. The frontier of simulation-based inference. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117 0 (48): 0 30055--30062, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Confidence sets and hypothesis testing in a likelihood-free inference setting

    Niccolo Dalmasso, Rafael Izbicki, and Ann Lee. Confidence sets and hypothesis testing in a likelihood-free inference setting. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2323--2334. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Likelihood-free frequentist inference: bridging classical statistics and machine learning for reliable simulator-based inference

    Niccol \`o Dalmasso, Luca Masserano, David Zhao, Rafael Izbicki, and Ann B Lee. Likelihood-free frequentist inference: bridging classical statistics and machine learning for reliable simulator-based inference. Electronic Journal of Statistics, 18 0 (2): 0 5045--5090, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Truncated proposals for scalable and hassle-free simulation-based inference

    Michael Deistler, Pedro J Goncalves, and Jakob H Macke. Truncated proposals for scalable and hassle-free simulation-based inference. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35: 0 23135--23149, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Towards reliable simulation-based inference with balanced neural ratio estimation

    Arnaud Delaunoy, Joeri Hermans, Fran c ois Rozet, Antoine Wehenkel, and Gilles Louppe. Towards reliable simulation-based inference with balanced neural ratio estimation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 0 20025--20037, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Balancing simulation-based inference for conservative posteriors

    Arnaud Delaunoy, Benjamin Kurt Miller, Patrick Forr \'e , Christoph Weniger, and Gilles Louppe. Balancing simulation-based inference for conservative posteriors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10978, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Conditionally calibrated predictive distributions by probability-probability map: application to galaxy redshift estimation and probabilistic forecasting

    Biprateep Dey, David Zhao, Jeffrey A Newman, Brett H Andrews, Rafael Izbicki, and Ann B Lee. Conditionally calibrated predictive distributions by probability-probability map: application to galaxy redshift estimation and probabilistic forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.14568, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Multi-output conformal regression: A unified comparative study with new conformity scores

    Victor Dheur, Matteo Fontana, Yorick Estievenart, Naomi Desobry, and Souhaib Ben Taieb. Multi-output conformal regression: A unified comparative study with new conformity scores. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.10533, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    On contrastive learning for likelihood-free inference

    Conor Durkan, Iain Murray, and George Papamakarios. On contrastive learning for likelihood-free inference. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2771--2781. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    The limits of distribution-free conditional predictive inference

    Rina Foygel Barber, Emmanuel J Candes, Aaditya Ramdas, and Ryan J Tibshirani. The limits of distribution-free conditional predictive inference. Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA, 10 0 (2): 0 455--482, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Bayesian inference using synthetic likelihood: asymptotics and adjustments

    David T Frazier, David J Nott, Christopher Drovandi, and Robert Kohn. Bayesian inference using synthetic likelihood: asymptotics and adjustments. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 118 0 (544): 0 2821--2832, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    A unified framework for constructing, tuning and assessing photometric redshift density estimates in a selection bias setting

    Peter E Freeman, Rafael Izbicki, and Ann B Lee. A unified framework for constructing, tuning and assessing photometric redshift density estimates in a selection bias setting. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 468 0 (4): 0 4556--4565, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    Compositional score modeling for simulation-based inference

    Tomas Geffner, George Papamakarios, and Andriy Mnih. Compositional score modeling for simulation-based inference. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 11098--11116. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Automatic posterior transformation for likelihood-free inference

    David Greenberg, Marcel Nonnenmacher, and Jakob Macke. Automatic posterior transformation for likelihood-free inference. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2404--2414. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Bayesian optimization for likelihood-free inference of simulator-based statistical models

    Michael U Gutmann and Jukka Corander. Bayesian optimization for likelihood-free inference of simulator-based statistical models. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 17 0 (125): 0 1--47, 2016

    2016

  24. [32]

    Likelihood-free mcmc with amortized approximate ratio estimators

    Joeri Hermans, Volodimir Begy, and Gilles Louppe. Likelihood-free mcmc with amortized approximate ratio estimators. In International conference on machine learning, pages 4239--4248. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Towards constraining warm dark matter with stellar streams through neural simulation-based inference

    Joeri Hermans, Nilanjan Banik, Christoph Weniger, Gianfranco Bertone, and Gilles Louppe. Towards constraining warm dark matter with stellar streams through neural simulation-based inference. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507 0 (2): 0 1999--2011, 2021

    1999

  26. [34]

    Machine Learning Beyond Point Predictions: Uncertainty Quantification

    Rafael Izbicki. Machine Learning Beyond Point Predictions: Uncertainty Quantification. 1st edition, 2025. ISBN 978-65-01-20272-3

    2025

  27. [35]

    High-dimensional density ratio estimation with extensions to approximate likelihood computation

    Rafael Izbicki, Ann Lee, and Chad Schafer. High-dimensional density ratio estimation with extensions to approximate likelihood computation. In Artificial intelligence and statistics, pages 420--429. PMLR, 2014

    2014

  28. [36]

    Abc--cde: Toward approximate bayesian computation with complex high-dimensional data and limited simulations

    Rafael Izbicki, Ann B Lee, and Taylor Pospisil. Abc--cde: Toward approximate bayesian computation with complex high-dimensional data and limited simulations. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 28 0 (3): 0 481--492, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    Distribution-free conditional predictive bands using density estimators

    Rafael Izbicki, Gilson T Shimizu, and Rafael B Stern. Distribution-free conditional predictive bands using density estimators. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research (AISTATS Track), 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Cd-split and hpd-split: efficient conformal regions in high dimensions

    Rafael Izbicki, Gilson Shimizu, and Rafael B Stern. Cd-split and hpd-split: efficient conformal regions in high dimensions. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Distribution-free prediction bands for non-parametric regression

    Jing Lei and Larry Wasserman. Distribution-free prediction bands for non-parametric regression. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 76 0 (1): 0 71--96, 2014

    2014

  32. [40]

    Julia Linhart, Alexandre Gramfort, and Pedro L. C. Rodrigues. L-c2 ST : Local diagnostics for posterior approximations in simulation-based inference. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=k2UVKezeWn

    2023

  33. [41]

    Diffusion posterior sampling for simulation-based inference in tall data settings

    Julia Linhart, Gabriel Victorino Cardoso, Alexandre Gramfort, Sylvain Le Corff, and Pedro LC Rodrigues. Diffusion posterior sampling for simulation-based inference in tall data settings. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07593, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Flexible statistical inference for mechanistic models of neural dynamics

    Jan-Matthis Lueckmann, Pedro J Goncalves, Giacomo Bassetto, Kaan \"O cal, Marcel Nonnenmacher, and Jakob H Macke. Flexible statistical inference for mechanistic models of neural dynamics. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  35. [43]

    Benchmarking simulation-based inference

    Jan-Matthis Lueckmann, Jan Boelts, David Greenberg, Pedro Goncalves, and Jakob Macke. Benchmarking simulation-based inference. In International conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, pages 343--351. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    Approximate bayesian computational methods

    Jean-Michel Marin, Pierre Pudlo, Christian P Robert, and Robin J Ryder. Approximate bayesian computational methods. Statistics and computing, 22 0 (6): 0 1167--1180, 2012

    2012

  37. [45]

    Simulator-based inference with waldo: Confidence regions by leveraging prediction algorithms and posterior estimators for inverse problems

    Luca Masserano, Tommaso Dorigo, Rafael Izbicki, Mikael Kuusela, and Ann Lee. Simulator-based inference with waldo: Confidence regions by leveraging prediction algorithms and posterior estimators for inverse problems. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and S...

    2023

  38. [46]

    Quantile regression forests

    Nicolai Meinshausen and Greg Ridgeway. Quantile regression forests. Journal of machine learning research, 7 0 (6), 2006

    2006

  39. [47]

    Deep learning in bioinformatics

    Seonwoo Min, Byunghan Lee, and Sungroh Yoon. Deep learning in bioinformatics. Briefings in bioinformatics, 18 0 (5): 0 851--869, 2017

    2017

  40. [48]

    Probabilistic machine learning: an introduction

    Kevin P Murphy. Probabilistic machine learning: an introduction. MIT press, 2022

    2022

  41. [49]

    Normalized nonconformity measures for regression conformal prediction

    Harris Papadopoulos, Alex Gammerman, and Volodya Vovk. Normalized nonconformity measures for regression conformal prediction. In Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Applications (AIA 2008), pages 64--69, 2008

    2008

  42. [50]

    Fast -free inference of simulation models with bayesian conditional density estimation

    George Papamakarios and Iain Murray. Fast -free inference of simulation models with bayesian conditional density estimation. Advances in neural information processing systems, 29, 2016

    2016

  43. [51]

    Sequential neural likelihood: Fast likelihood-free inference with autoregressive flows

    George Papamakarios, David Sterratt, and Iain Murray. Sequential neural likelihood: Fast likelihood-free inference with autoregressive flows. In The 22nd international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, pages 837--848. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  44. [52]

    Normalizing flows for probabilistic modeling and inference

    George Papamakarios, Eric Nalisnick, Danilo Jimenez Rezende, Shakir Mohamed, and Balaji Lakshminarayanan. Normalizing flows for probabilistic modeling and inference. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22 0 (57): 0 1--64, 2021

    2021

  45. [53]

    Variational inference with coverage guarantees in simulation-based inference

    Yash Patel, Declan McNamara, Jackson Loper, Jeffrey Regier, and Ambuj Tewari. Variational inference with coverage guarantees in simulation-based inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14275, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Scikit-learn: Machine learning in python

    Fabian Pedregosa, Ga \"e l Varoquaux, Alexandre Gramfort, Vincent Michel, Bertrand Thirion, Olivier Grisel, Mathieu Blondel, Peter Prettenhofer, Ron Weiss, Vincent Dubourg, et al. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in python. the Journal of machine Learning research, 12: 0 2825--2...

    2011

  47. [55]

    Conditionally valid probabilistic conformal prediction

    Vincent Plassier, Alexander Fishkov, Maxim Panov, and Eric Moulines. Conditionally valid probabilistic conformal prediction. stat, 1050: 0 1, 2024

    2024

  48. [56]

    Rectifying conformity scores for better conditional coverage

    Vincent Plassier, Alexander Fishkov, Victor Dheur, Mohsen Guizani, Souhaib Ben Taieb, Maxim Panov, and Eric Moulines. Rectifying conformity scores for better conditional coverage. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.16336, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Pedro L. C. Rodrigues, Thomas Moreau, Gilles Louppe, and Alexandre Gramfort. HNPE : Leveraging global parameters for neural posterior estimation. In A. Beygelzimer, Y. Dauphin, P. Liang, and J. Wortman Vaughan, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021. ...

    2021

  50. [58]

    On the application of machine learning in astronomy and astrophysics: A text-mining-based scientometric analysis

    Jos \'e -V \' ctor Rodr \' guez, Ignacio Rodr \' guez-Rodr \' guez, and Wai Lok Woo. On the application of machine learning in astronomy and astrophysics: A text-mining-based scientometric analysis. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 12 0 (5)...

    2022

  51. [59]

    Cand\`es

    Yaniv Romano, Evan Patterson, and Emmanuel J. Cand\`es. Conformalized quantile regression, 2019

    2019

  52. [60]

    Multivariate density estimation: theory, practice, and visualization

    David W Scott. Multivariate density estimation: theory, practice, and visualization. John Wiley & Sons, 2015

    2015

  53. [61]

    A tutorial on conformal prediction

    Glenn Shafer and Vladimir Vovk. A tutorial on conformal prediction. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9 0 (3), 2008

    2008

  54. [62]

    Handbook of approximate Bayesian computation

    Scott A Sisson, Yanan Fan, and Mark Beaumont. Handbook of approximate Bayesian computation. CRC press, 2018

    2018

  55. [63]

    Inverse problem theory and methods for model parameter estimation

    Albert Tarantola. Inverse problem theory and methods for model parameter estimation. SIAM, 2005

    2005

  56. [64]

    Machine learning computational fluid dynamics

    Ali Usman, Muhammad Rafiq, Muhammad Saeed, Ali Nauman, Andreas Almqvist, and Marcus Liwicki. Machine learning computational fluid dynamics. In 2021 Swedish artificial intelligence society workshop (SAIS), pages 1--4. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  57. [65]

    Quantifying uncertainty in land-use land-cover classification using conformal statistics

    Denis Valle, Rafael Izbicki, and Rodrigo Vieira Leite. Quantifying uncertainty in land-use land-cover classification using conformal statistics. Remote Sensing of Environment, 295: 0 113682, 2023

    2023

  58. [66]

    Enhancing computational fluid dynamics with machine learning

    Ricardo Vinuesa and Steven L Brunton. Enhancing computational fluid dynamics with machine learning. Nature Computational Science, 2 0 (6): 0 358--366, 2022

    2022

  59. [67]

    Conditional validity of inductive conformal predictors

    Vladimir Vovk. Conditional validity of inductive conformal predictors. In Asian conference on machine learning, pages 475--490, 2012

    2012

  60. [68]

    Algorithmic learning in a random world, volume 29

    Vladimir Vovk, Alexander Gammerman, and Glenn Shafer. Algorithmic learning in a random world, volume 29. Springer, 2005

    2005

  61. [69]

    Probabilistic conformal prediction using conditional random samples

    Zhendong Wang, Ruijiang Gao, Mingzhang Yin, Mingyuan Zhou, and David Blei. Probabilistic conformal prediction using conditional random samples. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 8814--8836. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  62. [70]

    Gamella†, Ozan Sener, Jens Behrmann, Guillermo Sapiro, Jörn-Henrik Jacobsen, and Marco Cuturi

    Antoine Wehenkel, Juan L. Gamella†, Ozan Sener, Jens Behrmann, Guillermo Sapiro, Jörn-Henrik Jacobsen, and Marco Cuturi. Addressing misspecification in simulation-based inference through data-driven calibration. In ICML, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.08719

    2025 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Flow matching for scalable simulation-based inference

    Jonas Wildberger, Maximilian Dax, Simon Buchholz, Stephen Green, Jakob H Macke, and Bernhard Sch \"o lkopf. Flow matching for scalable simulation-based inference. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 0 16837--16864, 2023

    2023

  64. [72]

    Diagnostics for conditional density models and bayesian inference algorithms

    David Zhao, Niccol \`o Dalmasso, Rafael Izbicki, and Ann B Lee. Diagnostics for conditional density models and bayesian inference algorithms. In Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 1830--1840. PMLR, 2021

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.