pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.02103 · v4 · submitted 2025-11-03 · 🧮 math.OC

Efficient Quantification of Time-Series Prediction Error: Optimal Selection Conformal Prediction

Boyu Pang , Kostas Margellos This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 00:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC
keywords conformal predictiontime seriesmixed integer linear programminguncertainty quantificationprediction intervalsoptimal selectionnonconformity score
0
0 comments X

The pith

OSCP uses mixed-integer optimization to select score offsets that shrink time-series prediction regions while preserving validity.

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

The paper introduces Optimal Selection Conformal Prediction to address large or costly uncertainty sets in time-series forecasting under conformal prediction. It parameterizes the nonconformity score with adjustable offset terms and casts their choice as a mixed-integer linear program whose objective is an empirical stand-in for final region size. A constraint reduction step then lowers the computational burden without losing the optimum. Theoretical arguments establish that the resulting sets remain valid at the target coverage level and achieve improved efficiency in average size. Experiments confirm both smaller regions and faster run times relative to existing approaches.

Core claim

OSCP determines offset parameters in the score function by solving a mixed-integer linear program that minimizes an empirical proxy of prediction-region size; the program is then reformulated with a smaller constraint set that preserves optimality. The construction supplies proofs of finite-sample validity, so that the probability the true value lies inside the constructed set meets or exceeds the nominal level, and of CP-efficiency, meaning the expected size of the set is controlled. These guarantees hold for the time-series setting where data exhibit dependence.

What carries the argument

The mixed-integer linear program that chooses offset parameters for the nonconformity score to minimize an empirical proxy of region size, together with its reduced-constraint reformulation.

If this is right

  • Prediction regions become smaller on average while still satisfying the coverage guarantee.
  • The computational cost of finding the parameters drops substantially compared with prior optimization-based conformal methods.
  • The same validity and efficiency properties extend to any score function that can be written with additive offsets.
  • The reduced-constraint MILP remains solvable at practical scales for moderate-length time series.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same offset-selection idea could be applied to other sequential prediction tasks such as video or sensor streams where dependence is present.
  • If the empirical proxy correlates strongly with true size, the approach offers a template for score optimization in any conformal setting that admits a linear-program representation.
  • The reformulation technique may transfer to other mixed-integer problems that arise when calibrating uncertainty sets under temporal correlation.

Load-bearing premise

Minimizing an empirical proxy for region size inside the MILP also minimizes the true expected region size on fresh data drawn from the same process.

What would settle it

On held-out time-series data, measure whether the average size of OSCP regions exceeds that of a leading baseline or whether empirical coverage falls below the nominal probability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.02103 by Boyu Pang, Kostas Margellos.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Data with non-conformity scores lower or equal to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Performance visualization on the Particle Dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Case studies: Particle Datasets. The dashed reference line denotes the target confidences, and only methods with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Case studies: Drone Dataset & Covid-19 Dataset. The dashed reference line denotes the target confidences, and only [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Designing effective score functions in Conformal Prediction (CP) for time-series data remains challenging due to conservativeness and/or computational inefficiency. We propose Optimal Selection Conformal Prediction (OSCP), which parameterizes the score function via offset terms. To determine these parameters, we formulate a mixed-integer linear program (MILP) that minimizes an empirical proxy of the region size. We further reformulate this optimization problem into a smaller form (fewer constraints) to improve computational efficiency. We provide theoretical guarantees on both validity and CP-efficiency of OSCP. Numerical experiments demonstrate that OSCP reduces uncertainty-set size and has much lower computational requirements compared to the state-of-the-art method.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes Optimal Selection Conformal Prediction (OSCP) for time-series data. It parameterizes the nonconformity score via offset terms, formulates a mixed-integer linear program (MILP) that minimizes an empirical proxy of prediction-region size, and reformulates the MILP to a smaller constraint set for computational efficiency. Theoretical guarantees are stated for validity and CP-efficiency, and experiments claim reduced set sizes together with substantially lower run times versus the state-of-the-art baseline.

Significance. If the claimed equivalence of the reformulation and the link from empirical proxy to population expected size both hold, OSCP would constitute a practical advance for conformal prediction under dependence, simultaneously tightening intervals and lowering computational cost. The explicit optimization of the score function is a constructive idea that merits further development; the paper already supplies concrete numerical comparisons that illustrate the potential gains.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2] §3.2 (MILP formulation): the objective minimizes a finite-sample proxy for region size rather than the population expected size. For serially dependent time-series data the empirical minimum need not converge to the population minimum; without a consistency argument or additional regularity conditions the CP-efficiency guarantee rests on an unverified step.
  2. [§4] §4 (reformulation): the claim that the reduced-constraint version is an exact equivalence (rather than a relaxation) is load-bearing for both optimality and the validity proof. The manuscript must exhibit the explicit mapping that shows every feasible solution of the original MILP corresponds to a feasible solution of the reduced form with identical objective value; otherwise the coverage guarantee may be compromised.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Table 2] Table 2: the reported run-time ratios would be more informative if accompanied by the absolute wall-clock times on the same hardware.
  2. [§2.1] Notation: the offset vector is introduced without an explicit dimension statement; adding a sentence clarifying its length relative to the horizon would remove ambiguity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments. The points raised concern the precise scope of the efficiency guarantee and the explicit verification of equivalence in the reformulation. We respond to each major comment below and indicate the revisions that will be incorporated.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (MILP formulation): the objective minimizes a finite-sample proxy for region size rather than the population expected size. For serially dependent time-series data the empirical minimum need not converge to the population minimum; without a consistency argument or additional regularity conditions the CP-efficiency guarantee rests on an unverified step.

    Authors: The CP-efficiency guarantee in the manuscript is stated with respect to the empirical proxy that is explicitly minimized by the MILP; this is the finite-sample quantity that determines the realized region sizes. The validity guarantee is unaffected because it follows from the standard conformal construction once the parameters are fixed, independent of how they were chosen. We agree that linking the empirical minimizer to the population expected size would require additional assumptions such as ergodicity or strong mixing on the time series. The manuscript does not claim such convergence, and the practical improvements are demonstrated directly via the empirical objective and the numerical experiments. We will revise §3.2 and the discussion of CP-efficiency to state this scope explicitly and add a brief remark on the conditions under which consistency would hold. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (reformulation): the claim that the reduced-constraint version is an exact equivalence (rather than a relaxation) is load-bearing for both optimality and the validity proof. The manuscript must exhibit the explicit mapping that shows every feasible solution of the original MILP corresponds to a feasible solution of the reduced form with identical objective value; otherwise the coverage guarantee may be compromised.

    Authors: The reduced formulation is obtained by eliminating constraints that are redundant under the non-negativity of the offset variables and the particular structure of the nonconformity score; every feasible solution of the original MILP maps to a feasible solution of the reduced form with the same objective value, and vice versa. To make this fully explicit, we will insert a short lemma in §4 that constructs the bijection between the two feasible sets and verifies preservation of the objective. This addition will confirm that the optimality and the subsequent validity argument are unchanged. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on separate theoretical guarantees rather than self-referential reduction

full rationale

The paper parameterizes the score function, solves an MILP on an empirical proxy for region size, performs a reformulation for efficiency, and states separate theoretical guarantees on validity and CP-efficiency. No quoted equation or step reduces a claimed prediction, optimality, or guarantee directly to the fitted inputs by construction. The optimization targets a finite-sample proxy while validity is asserted independently via CP properties; the population link and reformulation equivalence are presented as additional results rather than tautological. No self-citation load-bearing, self-definitional, or ansatz-smuggling patterns appear in the provided abstract and description. This is the common case of a self-contained method with empirical optimization plus external-style guarantees.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are identifiable from the given text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5634 in / 1042 out tokens · 29582 ms · 2026-05-18T00:41:49.773531+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bayesian recurrent neural networks,

    M. Fortunato, C. Blundell, and O. Vinyals, “Bayesian recurrent neural networks,” 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Mcmc using hamiltonian dynamics,

    R. M. Nealet al., “Mcmc using hamiltonian dynamics,”Handbook of markov chain monte carlo, vol. 2, no. 11, p. 2, 2011

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Auto-encoding variational bayes,

    D. P. Kingma, M. Welling,et al., “Auto-encoding variational bayes,” 2013

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Statistical model checking,

    A. Legay, A. Lukina, L. M. Traonouez, J. Yang, S. A. Smolka, and R. Grosu, “Statistical model checking,” inComputing and software science: state of the art and perspectives, pp. 478–504, Springer, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Statistical verification of hyperproperties for cyber-physical systems,

    Y . Wang, M. Zarei, B. Bonakdarpour, and M. Pajic, “Statistical verification of hyperproperties for cyber-physical systems,”ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems (TECS), vol. 18, no. 5s, pp. 1–23, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Formal verification and control with conformal prediction,

    L. Lindemann, Y . Zhao, X. Yu, G. J. Pappas, and J. V . Deshmukh, “Formal verification and control with conformal prediction,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.00536, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    V ovk, A

    V . V ovk, A. Gammerman, and G. Shafer,Algorithmic learning in a random world. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2005

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    M. C. Campi and S. Garatti,Introduction to the scenario approach. SIAM, 2018

    work page 2018

  9. [9]

    On the road between robust optimization and the scenario approach for chance constrained optimization problems,

    K. Margellos, P. Goulart, and J. Lygeros, “On the road between robust optimization and the scenario approach for chance constrained optimization problems,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 59, no. 8, pp. 2258–2263, 2014

    work page 2014

  10. [10]

    Bridging conformal prediction and scenario optimization,

    N. O’Sullivan, L. Romao, and K. Margellos, “Bridging conformal prediction and scenario optimization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23561, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Safe planning in dynamic environments using conformal prediction,

    L. Lindemann, M. Cleaveland, G. Shim, and G. J. Pappas, “Safe planning in dynamic environments using conformal prediction,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 8, 2023

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Recursively feasible shrinking-horizon mpc in dynamic environments with conformal prediction guarantees,

    C. Stamouli, L. Lindemann, and G. Pappas, “Recursively feasible shrinking-horizon mpc in dynamic environments with conformal prediction guarantees,” in6th Annual Learning for Dynamics & Control Conference, pp. 1330–1342, PMLR, 2024

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Scalable safe long-horizon planning in dynamic environments leveraging conformal prediction and temporal correlations,

    S. Tonkens, S. Sun, R. Yu, and S. Herbert, “Scalable safe long-horizon planning in dynamic environments leveraging conformal prediction and temporal correlations,” inLong-Term Human Motion Prediction Workshop, International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2023

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    Signal temporal logic control synthesis among uncontrollable dynamic agents with conformal prediction,

    X. Yu, Y . Zhao, X. Yin, and L. Lindemann, “Signal temporal logic control synthesis among uncontrollable dynamic agents with conformal prediction,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.04242, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Neural predictive monitoring,

    L. Bortolussi, F. Cairoli, N. Paoletti, S. A. Smolka, and S. D. Stoller, “Neural predictive monitoring,” inInternational Conference on Runtime Verification, pp. 129–147, Springer, 2019

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    Neural predictive monitoring under partial observability,

    F. Cairoli, L. Bortolussi, and N. Paoletti, “Neural predictive monitoring under partial observability,” inInternational Conference on Runtime Verification, pp. 121–141, Springer, 2021

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    Conformal quantitative predictive monitoring of stl requirements for stochastic processes,

    F. Cairoli, N. Paoletti, and L. Bortolussi, “Conformal quantitative predictive monitoring of stl requirements for stochastic processes,” in 26th ACM International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control (HSCC ’23), 2023

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    Data-driven reachability analysis of stochastic dynamical systems with conformal inference,

    N. Hashemi, X. Qin, L. Lindemann, and J. V . Deshmukh, “Data-driven reachability analysis of stochastic dynamical systems with conformal inference,” in2023 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 3102–3109, IEEE, 2023

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    Statistical reacha- bility analysis of stochastic cyber-physical systems under distribution shift,

    N. Hashemi, L. Lindemann, and J. V . Deshmukh, “Statistical reacha- bility analysis of stochastic cyber-physical systems under distribution shift,”IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, vol. 43, no. 11, pp. 4250–4261, 2024

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    Data-driven reachability using christoffel functions and conformal prediction,

    A. Tebjou, G. Frehse,et al., “Data-driven reachability using christoffel functions and conformal prediction,” inConformal and Probabilistic Prediction with Applications, pp. 194–213, PMLR, 2023

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Conformal time-series forecasting,

    K. Stankeviciute, A. M Alaa, and M. van der Schaar, “Conformal time-series forecasting,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 34, pp. 6216–6228, 2021

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Copula conformal prediction for multi-step time series prediction,

    S. H. Sun and R. Yu, “Copula conformal prediction for multi-step time series prediction,” inThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Multi-modal conformal prediction regions by optimizing convex shape templates,

    R. Tumu, M. Cleaveland, R. Mangharam, G. Pappas, and L. Lindemann, “Multi-modal conformal prediction regions by optimizing convex shape templates,” inProceedings of the 6th Annual Learning for Dynamics & Control Conference, vol. 242, pp. 1343–1356, PMLR, 2024

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Confor- mal prediction regions for time series using linear complementarity programming,

    M. Cleaveland, I. Lee, G. J. Pappas, and L. Lindemann, “Confor- mal prediction regions for time series using linear complementarity programming,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 38, pp. 20984–20992, 2024

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Conformal prediction for stl runtime verification,

    L. Lindemann, X. Qin, J. V . Deshmukh, and G. J. Pappas, “Conformal prediction for stl runtime verification,” inProceedings of the ACM/IEEE 14th International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (with CPS- IoT Week 2023), ICCPS ’23, pp. 142–153, 2023

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning,

    Y . Gal and Z. Ghahramani, “Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning,” inProceedings of The 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning, vol. 48, pp. 1050–1059, PMLR, 2016

    work page 2016

  27. [27]

    Conformal prediction under covariate shift,

    R. J. Tibshirani, R. Foygel Barber, E. Candes, and A. Ramdas, “Conformal prediction under covariate shift,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 32, 2019

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    Conformal prediction for multi- dimensional time series by ellipsoidal sets,

    C. Xu, H. Jiang, and Y . Xie, “Conformal prediction for multi- dimensional time series by ellipsoidal sets,” inProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML’24, 2024

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Neural relational inference for interacting systems,

    T. Kipf, E. Fetaya, K.-C. Wang, M. Welling, and R. Zemel, “Neural relational inference for interacting systems,” inProceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, vol. 80, pp. 2688–2697, PMLR, 2018

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    Pythonrobotics: a python code collection of robotics algorithms,

    A. Sakai, D. Ingram, J. Dinius, K. Chawla, A. Raffin, and A. Paques, “Pythonrobotics: a python code collection of robotics algorithms,” 2018. APPENDIX VI. PROOF OFTHEOREM2 Lemma 1.Fix an error level ϵ∈(0,1) , and a prede- fined score function A. Fix also any norm, and let r∗ t , t= 0, . . . , T−1 , be the optimal parameters of OSCP’s score function. Any v...

    work page 2018

  31. [31]

    Now, since {r∗ t } is optimal to the objective of (MILP), then the average radius of Γϵ( ˆY0:T−1 )∗ is the minimum among all norm-ball regions that contains at least p1 elements out ofY (i),i= 1, . . . , n 1. Now, consider CP regions constructed on Dcal,1 via the score functionAand a selected shape induced by|| · ||: Γϵ( ˆY0:T−1 ) :={Y∈R T×d :A(Y− ˆY0:T−1...

    work page

  32. [32]

    Randomly split the second half into calibration-set and test-set with fixed proportion

    work page

  33. [33]

    For error tolerance ( ϵ) from 0.05 to 0.5 (10 different values in total), use calibration-set to train the UQ methods

    work page

  34. [34]

    Lastly, all the results are averaged over the 50 runs

    Test the UQ methods on test-set and calculate the validity&efficiencymetrics (see below) on test-set forϵ= 0.05to0.5. Lastly, all the results are averaged over the 50 runs. c) Validity Metric:At each run, the validity is evaluated by the empirical coverage on the test-set, which is calculated as follows: Coverage(Γϵ) := 1 |Dtest| X (X(i),Y(i))∈Dtest I Y(i...

    work page

  35. [35]

    However, the computation cost for LCP can be very large (see Table I in Section IV-C), and it still has larger volumes than our method, OSCP

    has the best performance as it achieves target coverages while having smaller volumes than other baselines. However, the computation cost for LCP can be very large (see Table I in Section IV-C), and it still has larger volumes than our method, OSCP. We can also observe that the size reduction is most significant on the Covid-19 dataset. This dataset has d...

    work page arXiv