Generalization and Informativeness of Weighted Conformal Risk Control Under Covariate Shift

Fredrik Hellstr\"om; Matteo Zecchin; Osvaldo Simeone; Sangwoo Park; Shlomo Shamai (Shitz)

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Generalization and Informativeness of Weighted Conformal Risk Control Under Covariate Shift

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that the expected size of W-CRC prediction sets under covariate shift is bounded before deployment by training-time quantities, so prediction-set informativeness can be evaluated when the model is built.

desk verdict A genuine extension of the authors' conformal efficiency bound to covariate shift, but the verification of the key generalization assumption has a wrong-direction KL inequality that needs repair. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11413 v1 pith:7IDODRXS submitted 2025-01-20 cs.LG cs.AIcs.ITmath.IT

Matteo Zecchin , Fredrik Hellström , Sangwoo Park , Shlomo Shamai (Shitz) , Osvaldo Simeone This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.ITmath.IT

keywords weightedconformalriskcontrolcovariateshiftpredictionsetefficiencygeneralizationboundset-valueduncertaintyquantificationRSSIlocalization

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

Weighted conformal risk control (W-CRC) turns point predictions into prediction sets that meet a user-specified risk under covariate shift, but the size of those sets—how informative they are—could previously only be measured after deployment. This paper proves that the expected set size is bounded at training time by quantities the user can inspect: the base predictor's generalization gap, the training and calibration set sizes, the risk level, and the maximum likelihood ratio between test and training covariates. The bound makes the efficiency-reliability tradeoff visible before deployment, including how much calibration data is needed to counteract a given shift. Experiments on RSSI-based localization confirm the predicted ordering: larger covariate shifts and smaller calibration sets produce larger prediction regions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the W-CRC threshold selector, which compares a weighted empirical loss—calibration losses reweighted by likelihood ratios $w(x) = P'_X(x)/P_X(x)$ and augmented with a worst-case test point—to the target risk $\alpha$. Around this sit three ingredients: the non-conformity score density $\gamma(r)$, which counts how many labels have score near $r$ and turns set size into an integral; the generalization gap $\Delta(Q|D_{\mathrm{tr}})$, which the paper bounds through mutual-information and Rademacher arguments; and a Hoeffding concentration step that yields the exponential tail in Eq. (20).

What would settle it

Run W-CRC on a task with computable likelihood ratios and a known NC-score density, record actual expected set sizes over many trained models, and check whether any realization violates Eq. (20) at a rate exceeding $\delta$; alternatively, directly measure $\Delta(Q|D_{\mathrm{tr}}) = \sup_\lambda |\hat{L}_Q(\lambda|D_{\mathrm{tr}}) - L_Q(\lambda)|$ and compare it with the Assumption 3 right-hand side across many training draws.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is Theorem 1: under a bounded, non-increasing loss, a bounded likelihood ratio $w(x) \leq \bar{W}$, and a generalization-gap bound on the base predictor, the W-CRC expected set size satisfies Eq. (20) with probability at least $1-\delta$ over the training set. The bound writes the normalized inefficiency $\Lambda_{\mathrm{W-CRC}}(D_{\mathrm{tr}})/|\mathcal{Y}|$ as the integral of the NC-score density $\gamma(r)$ up to a threshold $\hat{\lambda}$ plus an exponentially decaying tail over larger scores. The threshold $\hat{\lambda}$ itself is determined by the empirical training risk, the target risk $\alpha$, the shift bound $\bar{W}$, $n_{\mathrm{cal}}$, $n_{\mathrm{tr}}$, and the generalization constant $\beta(\delta, n_{\mathrm{tr}})$. The theorem therefore converts the post-hoc question 'how big are the sets?' into a training-time computation.

Load-bearing premise

Assumption 3: the worst-case gap between the set predictor's training-set risk and its risk under the test distribution is at most $\beta(\delta,n_{\mathrm{tr}})/\sqrt{n_{\mathrm{tr}}} + \bar{L}\sqrt{\log \bar{W}}$, with probability $1-\delta$; if this generalization-gap bound is violated in practice, the set-size bound in Eq. (20) no longer holds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For a fixed total data budget, the bound identifies a training/calibration split that minimizes worst-case set size, and that split shifts toward calibration as the covariate shift $\bar{W}$ grows.
Increasing calibration size $n_{\mathrm{cal}}$ shrinks the inefficiency bound both through faster exponential decay and through a smaller threshold $\hat{\lambda}$.
Growing the training set helps mainly when the covariate shift is mild; under large $\bar{W}$, the irreducible $\bar{L}\sqrt{\log \bar{W}}$ term dominates.
The bound can be evaluated entirely at training time, so a practitioner can compare candidate data splits and reliability levels without test data.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper's claims, one could test tightness directly: estimate $\gamma(r)$ and the actual generalization gap on the localization task, then compare measured set sizes with the right-hand side of Eq. (20).
Beyond the paper's claims, the proof route suggests a label-shift analogue: reweight calibration losses by $P'_Y/P_Y$; the covariate-shift generalization-gap bound would need to be replaced by a label-shift concentration argument.
Beyond the paper's claims, the monotonicity in $\bar{W}$ points to a practical lever: clipping or smoothing estimated likelihood ratios should reduce the bound and, if the bound is tight, the realized set size.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a real, non-trivial extension—the first training-time bound I know for W-CRC set size under covariate shift—and the main theorem is a clean conditional statement. But the paper tries to show Assumption 3 holds for standard algorithms, and that argument fails at Eq. (43) in Appendix B: w ≤ Wbar bounds KL(P'_X||P_X), not KL(P_X||P'_X), and the latter can be infinite. That is the load-bearing link to practice, so as written the verification is not established.

What is genuinely good: Theorem 1 relates inefficiency to the NC-score density, empirical training risk, shift magnitude Wbar, risk level, and ncal/ntr, and the discussion is honest—the bound is explicitly conditional on a stated assumption. The proof is self-contained and I don't see a gap in the main concentration step. The data-split insight (more calibration data helps when shift is large) is a useful practical heuristic, and the experiments qualitatively match it, though they never evaluate the bound numerically.

Soft spots, in order: (1) The Appendix B justification is broken at Eq. (43). Fixing it means using KL(P'_X||P_X) and the correct Pinsker constant, which puts a 1/√2 factor in every occurrence of Lbar sqrt(log Wbar)—Eqs. (18), (20), (21), (44), (53). That is mechanical but needs doing. (2) Assumption 3 is strong—a uniform bound on the generalization gap that includes the shift bias—and the paper does not check it empirically. (3) Experiments are trend-matching only; the bound itself is not computed. These are real but not fatal, because the theorem is honest about its condition.

Who this is for: researchers working on conformal risk control under distribution shift, especially those who want a finite-sample, training-time handle on prediction set efficiency. It deserves a serious referee—the idea is interesting and the main proof largely holds—but I would not accept it in current form. The authors need to fix the KL direction and either find a valid verification or state Assumption 3 as an unverified premise.

My recommendation: send to peer review with a request for major revision, and make the referee aware of the specific Appendix B issue.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a training-time bound on the expected size of prediction sets produced by weighted conformal risk control (W-CRC) under covariate shift. The main result, Theorem 1, relates the expected set size to the nonconformity score density, the training empirical risk, the covariate-shift bound \bar W, the target risk level, and the training and calibration set sizes, under Assumptions 1–3. An appendix aims to show that Assumption 3 holds for Gibbs posteriors, differentially private ERM, and SGLD, and the paper reports localization experiments that illustrate qualitative trends consistent with the bound.

Significance. If the conditional result and its verification are correct, the paper provides a useful bridge between the generalization properties of a base predictor and the efficiency of weighted conformal risk control, with practical implications for choosing training/calibration splits under distribution shift. The writing is clear, the conditional theorem is plausible, and the topic is timely. However, the paper's value depends critically on Assumption 3 being satisfied by standard algorithms, and the current verification of that assumption is defective because of an incorrect KL-divergence inequality.

major comments (2)

[Appendix B, Eq. (43)] The inequality KL(P_X||P'_X) ≤ log \bar W is asserted from w(x) = P'_X(x)/P_X(x) ≤ \bar W, but this is incorrect: w ≤ \bar W implies KL(P'_X||P_X) = E_{P'_X}[log w(X)] ≤ log \bar W, whereas KL(P_X||P'_X) = E_{P_X}[log(1/w(X))] can be arbitrarily large, or infinite, under Assumption 2. The example X={0,1}, P_X=(1/2,1/2), P'_X=(0,1) satisfies w ≤ 2 yet KL(P_X||P'_X)=∞. This invalidates the derivation of the bias bound Δb(Q|Dtr) ≤ \bar L sqrt(log \bar W) and therefore the proof that Assumption 3 holds for the Gibbs, DP-ERM, and SGLD algorithms named in Section III-A. Since this is the only step connecting the mutual-information bound to the covariate-shift term, the claimed applicability of Theorem 1 to those algorithms is not established. The repair is to use KL(P'_X||P_X) instead, and to re-derive the constant. All occurrences of the term \bar L sqrt(log \bar W) in Eqs. (18), (20), (21), (44), and (53) must be re-checked against the corrected inequality.
[Appendix B, Eq. (43) and Assumption 3] Even after reversing the KL direction, the bound in Eq. (43) uses an implicit constant of 1 in front of sqrt(KL), whereas the cited result [33, Lemma 1] for sub-Gaussian random variables typically yields a constant involving sqrt(2) or 1/sqrt(2) depending on the exact statement (e.g., via Pinsker's inequality). The authors should derive the precise constant and state explicitly the resulting form of Assumption 3, because the quantitative behavior of the inefficiency bound in Theorem 1 and the discussion in Section III-D depend on the magnitude of this covariate-shift bias term.

minor comments (5)

[Section II-C, Eq. (10)] The notation \hat L_Q(λ, X|D) uses the full dataset D in the argument, but the sum runs only over the calibration set; consider writing Dcal for clarity.
[Section IV, Figures 3 and 4] The figures plot "relative inefficiency" without stating whether the values are averaged over multiple realizations of the training and calibration splits; adding error bars or repeated-seed results would strengthen the empirical validation.
[Appendix C, proof of Theorem 1] The step from Eq. (51) to Eq. (53) replaces λ* by \hat λ with \hat λ ≥ λ*; this is valid only because the exponential factor is at most 1, so the integrand on [λ*, \hat λ] is bounded by γ(r). Please state this explicitly to help the reader.
[Appendix B, first paragraph] The phrase "the the product distribution" contains a duplicated article.
[References] Reference [27] appears to duplicate the previously cited work [14] (Dhillon et al.); please consolidate to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the W-CRC inefficiency bound is a conditional theorem derived from stated assumptions, and the Appendix B KL-direction issue is a correctness defect rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard conditional analysis. Theorem 1 is explicitly stated under Assumptions 1-3, and the bound in Eq. (20) follows from Hoeffding concentration combined with the assumed generalization gap. The covariate-shift dependence in the main theorem is inherited from Assumption 3, but Assumption 3 is a stated modeling assumption rather than a hidden fit or a definitional identity; the paper does not pretend to derive the qualitative effect of covariate shift on set size without that assumption. The verification of Assumption 3 for Gibbs posteriors, differentially private ERM, and SGLD in Appendix B relies on Lemma 1 from the authors' prior work [15], yet the lemma is stated in full and is an elementary Markov/Chernoff-type bound that does not presuppose Theorem 1 or the W-CRC result. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no external result is replaced by a self-citation chain. The notable defect is in Eq. (43), where w <= Wbar bounds KL(P'_X||P_X), not KL(P_X||P'_X); this is a correctness/repair issue in the proof of Assumption 3, not a circular reduction. Hence the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theorem rests on three explicit assumptions (loss monotonicity, bounded likelihood ratio, and a uniform generalization-gap bound) plus the standard weighted-exchangeability and covariate-shift conditions. There are no fitted free parameters; the bound is expressed in terms of problem-dependent quantities.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Assumption 1: The loss L(Gamma(x),y) is bounded in [0,Lbar], non-increasing as the prediction set grows, and L(Y,y)=0.
Standard regularity condition for conformal risk control, inherited from [12]; it ensures reliability can be achieved by returning the full label space and makes the inefficiency the relevant metric.
domain assumption Assumption 2: The likelihood ratio w(x)=P'X(x)/PX(x) is bounded above by Wbar.
This makes the covariate shift measurable and is standard in weighted conformal inference; it is stated in Section III-A and used throughout Theorem 1.
domain assumption Assumption 3: The generalization gap Delta(Q|Dtr) is bounded with probability 1-delta by beta(delta,ntr)/sqrt(ntr) + Lbar sqrt(log Wbar).
This is the load-bearing assumption of the theorem. The appendix attempts to prove it for Gibbs posteriors, DP-ERM, and SGLD, but the proof contains the KL direction error in Eq. (43).
domain assumption Weighted exchangeability of the calibration data and test point, with known likelihood ratios.
Used in Appendix A to prove Proposition 1 (alpha-reliability); this is the standard W-CRC assumption from [11].
domain assumption Covariate shift preserves the conditional label distribution: P'Y|X = PY|X.
This is the problem definition in Section II-A, and it underlies the likelihood-ratio weighting.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generalization and Informativeness of Weighted Conformal Risk Control Under Covariate Shift." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7IDODRXS

@misc{pith2026250111413,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generalization and Informativeness of Weighted Conformal Risk Control Under Covariate Shift},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7IDODRXS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11413}
}

read the original abstract

Predictive models are often required to produce reliable predictions under statistical conditions that are not matched to the training data. A common type of training-testing mismatch is covariate shift, where the conditional distribution of the target variable given the input features remains fixed, while the marginal distribution of the inputs changes. Weighted conformal risk control (W-CRC) uses data collected during the training phase to convert point predictions into prediction sets with valid risk guarantees at test time despite the presence of a covariate shift. However, while W-CRC provides statistical reliability, its efficiency -- measured by the size of the prediction sets -- can only be assessed at test time. In this work, we relate the generalization properties of the base predictor to the efficiency of W-CRC under covariate shifts. Specifically, we derive a bound on the inefficiency of the W-CRC predictor that depends on algorithmic hyperparameters and task-specific quantities available at training time. This bound offers insights on relationships between the informativeness of the prediction sets, the extent of the covariate shift, and the size of the calibration and training sets. Experiments on fingerprinting-based localization validate the theoretical results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11413 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Inefficiency bound as a function of the fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Relative inefficiency of W-CRC as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

Learning- based model predictive control: Toward safe learning in control,

L. Hewing, K. P. Wabersich, M. Menner, and M. N. Zeilinger, “Learning- based model predictive control: Toward safe learning in control,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 269–296, 2020

work page 2020
[2]

Fair conformal predictors for applications in medical imaging,

C. Lu, A. Lemay, K. Chang, K. Höbel, and J. Kalpathy-Cramer, “Fair conformal predictors for applications in medical imaging,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 36, no. 11, 2022, pp. 12 008–12 016

work page 2022
[3]

Theoretical foundations of conformal prediction,

A. N. Angelopoulos, R. F. Barber, and S. Bates, “Theoretical foundations of conformal prediction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.11824 , 2024

arXiv 2024
[4]

Forking uncertainties: Reliable prediction and model predictive control with sequence models via conformal risk control,

M. Zecchin, S. Park, and O. Simeone, “Forking uncertainties: Reliable prediction and model predictive control with sequence models via conformal risk control,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory, 2024

work page 2024
[5]

Estimating uncertainty online against an adversary,

V . Kuleshov and S. Ermon, “Estimating uncertainty online against an adversary,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 31, no. 1, 2017

work page 2017
[6]

Can you trust your model’s uncer- tainty? Evaluating predictive uncertainty under dataset shift,

Y . Ovadia, E. Fertig, J. Ren, Z. Nado, D. Sculley, S. Nowozin, J. Dillon, B. Lakshminarayanan, and J. Snoek, “Can you trust your model’s uncer- tainty? Evaluating predictive uncertainty under dataset shift,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 32, 2019

work page 2019
[7]

Improving predictive inference under covariate shift by weighting the log-likelihood function,

H. Shimodaira, “Improving predictive inference under covariate shift by weighting the log-likelihood function,” Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, vol. 90, no. 2, pp. 227–244, 2000

work page 2000
[8]

Wireless RSSI fingerprinting localization,

S. Yiu, M. Dashti, H. Claussen, and F. Perez-Cruz, “Wireless RSSI fingerprinting localization,” Signal Processing , vol. 131, pp. 235–244, 2017

work page 2017

Show all 36 references

[9]

CSI-based fingerprinting for indoor localization using LTE signals,

G. Pecoraro, S. Di Domenico, E. Cianca, and M. De Sanctis, “CSI-based fingerprinting for indoor localization using LTE signals,” EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing , vol. 2018, pp. 1–18, 2018

2018
[10]

Base station ON-OFF switching in 5G wireless networks: Approaches and challenges,

M. Feng, S. Mao, and T. Jiang, “Base station ON-OFF switching in 5G wireless networks: Approaches and challenges,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 46–54, 2017

2017
[11]

Confor- mal prediction under covariate shift,

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

2019
[12]

Conformal risk control,

A. N. Angelopoulos, S. Bates, A. Fisch, L. Lei, and T. Schuster, “Conformal risk control,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.02814 , 2022

2022 arXiv
[13]

Conformal prediction: A gentle introduction,

A. N. Angelopoulos, S. Bates et al. , “Conformal prediction: A gentle introduction,” Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning , vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 494–591, 2023

2023
[14]

On the expected size of conformal prediction sets,

G. S. Dhillon, G. Deligiannidis, and T. Rainforth, “On the expected size of conformal prediction sets,” in International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics . PMLR, 2024, pp. 1549–1557

2024
[15]

Generalization and informativeness of conformal prediction,

M. Zecchin, S. Park, O. Simeone, and F. Hellström, “Generalization and informativeness of conformal prediction,” in 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) , 2024, pp. 244–249

2024
[16]

Distribution-free predictive inference for regression,

J. Lei, M. G’Sell, A. Rinaldo, R. J. Tibshirani, and L. Wasserman, “Distribution-free predictive inference for regression,” Journal of the American Statistical Association , vol. 113, no. 523, pp. 1094–1111, 2018

2018
[17]

Provably robust conformal prediction with improved efficiency,

G. Yan, Y . Romano, and T.-W. Weng, “Provably robust conformal prediction with improved efficiency,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19651 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[18]

Robust yet efficient conformal prediction sets,

S. H. Zargarbashi, M. S. Akhondzadeh, and A. Bojchevski, “Robust yet efficient conformal prediction sets,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.09165 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[19]

Shrinking the tube: a new support vector regression algorithm,

B. Schölkopf, P. Bartlett, A. Smola, and R. C. Williamson, “Shrinking the tube: a new support vector regression algorithm,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 11, 1998

1998
[20]

A stochastic approximation method,

H. Robbins and S. Monro, “A stochastic approximation method,” The annals of mathematical statistics , pp. 400–407, 1951

1951
[21]

Bayesian learning via stochastic gradient Langevin dynamics,

M. Welling and Y . W. Teh, “Bayesian learning via stochastic gradient Langevin dynamics,” inProceedings of the 28th international conference on machine learning (ICML-11) . Citeseer, 2011, pp. 681–688

2011
[22]

C. M. Bishop and N. M. Nasrabadi, Pattern recognition and machine learning. Springer, 2006, vol. 4, no. 4

2006
[23]

Simeone, Machine Learning for Engineers

O. Simeone, Machine Learning for Engineers . Cambridge University Press, 2022

2022
[24]

Learn- ing bounds for domain adaptation,

J. Blitzer, K. Crammer, A. Kulesza, F. Pereira, and J. Wortman, “Learn- ing bounds for domain adaptation,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 20, 2007

2007
[25]

Domain adaptation: Learning bounds and algorithms,

Y . Mansour, M. Mohri, and A. Rostamizadeh, “Domain adaptation: Learning bounds and algorithms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:0902.3430 , 2009

2009 arXiv
[26]

Differentially private empirical risk minimization

K. Chaudhuri, C. Monteleoni, and A. D. Sarwate, “Differentially private empirical risk minimization.” Journal of Machine Learning Research , vol. 12, no. 3, 2011

2011
[27]

On the expected size of conformal prediction sets,

G. S. Dhillon, G. Deligiannidis, and T. Rainforth, “On the expected size of conformal prediction sets,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.07254 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[28]

Sigfox and LoRaW AN datasets for fingerprint localization in large urban and rural areas,

M. Aernouts, R. Berkvens, K. Van Vlaenderen, and M. Weyn, “Sigfox and LoRaW AN datasets for fingerprint localization in large urban and rural areas,” Data, vol. 3, no. 2, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5729/3/2/13

2018
[29]

Generalization error bounds for noisy, iterative algorithms,

A. Pensia, V . Jog, and P.-L. Loh, “Generalization error bounds for noisy, iterative algorithms,” in 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 546–550

2018
[30]

Calibrating noise to variance in adaptive data analysis,

V . Feldman and T. Steinke, “Calibrating noise to variance in adaptive data analysis,” in Proc. Conf. Learning Theory (COLT) , Stockholm, Sweden, 7 2018

2018
[31]

Raginsky, A

M. Raginsky, A. Rakhlin, and A. Xu, Information-Theoretic Stability and Generalization. Cambridge University Press, 2021, p. 302–329

2021
[32]

Foundations of machine learning,

M. Mohri, “Foundations of machine learning,” 2018

2018
[33]

Information-theoretic analysis of generaliza- tion capability of learning algorithms,

A. Xu and M. Raginsky, “Information-theoretic analysis of generaliza- tion capability of learning algorithms,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 30, 2017

2017
[34]

M. J. Wainwright, High-Dimensional Statistics: a Non-Asymptotic View- point. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019. APPENDIX A. Proof of Proposition 1 In the following, we prove that the W-CRC set predictor satisfies the α-reliability requirement, as stated in Propositi...

2019
[35]

We use the shorthand notation Lθ(λ, Z) = L(Γθ(X, λ), Y)

Bounding ˜∆(Q|Dtr): Here we focus on the first term of the decomposition (33), i.e., the absolute difference over λ between the empirical risk and population risk under PXY . We use the shorthand notation Lθ(λ, Z) = L(Γθ(X, λ), Y). (34) For a fixed model θ′ ∈ Θ, we denote ˜∆(θ...
[36]

ncalX i=1 Wi Li(λθ y) − α ≥ W (α − ¯L) # dy ≤ Z Y Pr

Bounding ∆b(Q|Dtr): It remains to bound the bias term ∆b(Q|Dtr) in (33). Since the loss L(·, ·) is bounded by ¯L, it is ¯L/2-sub-Gaussian. Hence, the bias term can be bounded via the KL divergence between the training marginal PX and test marginal P ′ X [33, Lemma 1]. Specific...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Learning- based model predictive control: Toward safe learning in control,

L. Hewing, K. P. Wabersich, M. Menner, and M. N. Zeilinger, “Learning- based model predictive control: Toward safe learning in control,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 269–296, 2020

work page 2020

[2] [2]

Fair conformal predictors for applications in medical imaging,

C. Lu, A. Lemay, K. Chang, K. Höbel, and J. Kalpathy-Cramer, “Fair conformal predictors for applications in medical imaging,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 36, no. 11, 2022, pp. 12 008–12 016

work page 2022

[3] [3]

Theoretical foundations of conformal prediction,

A. N. Angelopoulos, R. F. Barber, and S. Bates, “Theoretical foundations of conformal prediction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.11824 , 2024

arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

Forking uncertainties: Reliable prediction and model predictive control with sequence models via conformal risk control,

M. Zecchin, S. Park, and O. Simeone, “Forking uncertainties: Reliable prediction and model predictive control with sequence models via conformal risk control,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory, 2024

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Estimating uncertainty online against an adversary,

V . Kuleshov and S. Ermon, “Estimating uncertainty online against an adversary,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 31, no. 1, 2017

work page 2017

[6] [6]

Can you trust your model’s uncer- tainty? Evaluating predictive uncertainty under dataset shift,

Y . Ovadia, E. Fertig, J. Ren, Z. Nado, D. Sculley, S. Nowozin, J. Dillon, B. Lakshminarayanan, and J. Snoek, “Can you trust your model’s uncer- tainty? Evaluating predictive uncertainty under dataset shift,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 32, 2019

work page 2019

[7] [7]

Improving predictive inference under covariate shift by weighting the log-likelihood function,

H. Shimodaira, “Improving predictive inference under covariate shift by weighting the log-likelihood function,” Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, vol. 90, no. 2, pp. 227–244, 2000

work page 2000

[8] [8]

Wireless RSSI fingerprinting localization,

S. Yiu, M. Dashti, H. Claussen, and F. Perez-Cruz, “Wireless RSSI fingerprinting localization,” Signal Processing , vol. 131, pp. 235–244, 2017

work page 2017