Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 60 references

A Conformal Approach to Feature-based Newsvendor under Model Misspecification

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding the empirical residual quantile to any fitted quantile predictor yields a conformalized critical quantile with finite-sample coverage, and under regularity conditions conditional coverage and confidence intervals, even under model…

desk verdict Unproven conditional guarantees rest on a deterministic gap-function assumption that standard estimators fail with positive probability; the practical local-calibration scheme is the real contribution. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13159 v1 pith:DJ7TDBHT submitted 2024-12-17 cs.LG stat.ML

Junyu Cao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGstat.ML MSC 62G0862G1590B05
keywords feature-basednewsvendorconformalpredictionquantileregressionmodelmisspecificationcriticaldataqualityandquantityconditionalcoverageinventorydecision-making
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 studies the feature-based newsvendor problem, where a retailer chooses an order quantity after seeing features such as weather or seasonality, balancing overage and underage costs. Its proposal is a two-phase recipe: fit any quantile predictor on a training set, then add to its output an empirical quantile of the prediction residuals computed on a separate calibration set. The central claim is that this conformalized critical quantile has a finite-sample guarantee on the probability that demand falls at or below the chosen order quantity, and the guarantee holds even when the trained model is misspecified. Under additional regularity assumptions on how prediction error varies between contexts and how demand density behaves near the quantile, the paper also derives conditional guarantees and a confidence interval for the true critical quantile. The method is validated on simulated data and Washington D.C. bike-sharing data, reporting substantially lower newsvendor loss than benchmarks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the conformalized critical quantile $\hat{q}^c_\alpha(X_0)=\hat{q}_\alpha(X_0)+Q_\alpha(s,\mathcal{I}_2)$, where the correction term $Q_\alpha$ is the empirical quantile of signed calibration residuals at level $\alpha(1+1/|\mathcal{I}_2|)$. Because the scores are signed, a model that systematically overestimates the quantile receives a negative correction and one that underestimates receives a positive correction. Conditional guarantees are carried by two structural assumptions: the gap function $\kappa(n_1,\xi(x_1,x_2))$ bounds the difference in quantile-prediction error between contexts separated by distance $\xi$, and the margin functions $\underline{h}(\Delta),\bar{h}(\Delta)$ control how much demand probability mass sits within a $\Delta$-neighborhood of the true quantile. These combine into the local bound $\varphi(\Delta,B)=\bar{h}(\Delta+\kappa(n_1(B),\xi(B)))+\exp(-2n_2(B)\underline{h}(\Delta)^2)$ that Theorem 3 places on conditional coverage, and they determine the optimal data-pooling ball.

What would settle it

Simulate data with a true quantile function that changes abruptly between nearby feature values by more than any gap function of the form $\kappa(n_1,\xi)=C\sqrt{\xi^\nu/n_1}$, then measure the conditional coverage $P(Y_{n+1}\leq\hat{q}^c_\alpha(X_{n+1})\mid X_{n+1})$ at test points near the abrupt change. If the empirical coverage leaves the interval $\alpha\pm\varphi(\Delta,B)$ from Theorem 3, or if the coverage gap does not shrink with $n_2$ as predicted, the paper's conditional claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery is the additive conformalization identity $\hat{q}^c_\alpha(X_0) = \hat{q}_\alpha(X_0) + Q_\alpha(s,\mathcal{I}_2)$, where $s_i = Y_i - \hat{q}_\alpha(X_i)$ are signed residuals on the calibration set and $Q_\alpha(s,\mathcal{I}_2)$ is the empirical quantile of those residuals at level $\alpha(1+1/|\mathcal{I}_2|)$. Theorem 1 states that for i.i.d. data with almost surely distinct scores, $\alpha \leq P(Y_{n+1} \leq \hat{q}^c_\alpha(X_{n+1})) \leq \alpha + 1/(n_2+1)$, so the corrected quantile lies between the true $\alpha$-quantile and the true $(\alpha+1/(n_2+1))$-quantile regardless of whether the underlying demand model is correct. Under a gap-function assumption and a margin condition, Theorems 2 and 3 convert this marginal guarantee into conditional coverage bounds, and Theorem 4 provides a confidence interval for the true critical quantile whose width decreases as training and calibration sample sizes grow.

Load-bearing premise

The conditional theorems assume that the difference between the quantile-prediction errors at two contexts is bounded by a known function of their distance, and that the probability of demand falling just above or below the true quantile changes in a controlled way; if either control is absent or inaccurate, the local coverage guarantees do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any quantile regression algorithm can be plugged into the training phase, and the conformalized output still satisfies the finite-sample coverage bound of Theorem 1.
  • Conditional coverage error decays exponentially with calibration-set size, so the calibration phase directly tightens the guarantee as more data arrive.
  • The optimal pooling region balances quality and quantity: adding more local data tightens the calibration term, while pushing the region wider increases the gap-function term; in the big-data limit the optimal diameter shrinks to zero.
  • The confidence interval from Theorem 4 lets a manager choose an optimistic or conservative order quantity within a stated uncertainty range.
  • Numerical results on simulated data and the Capital Bikeshare dataset report reductions in empirical newsvendor loss of up to 38.6% and 47.3% from adding local calibration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: The same additive residual-quantile correction can likely be applied to any decision problem whose optimal action is a quantile, such as capacity or staffing decisions, since the correction only requires signed residuals from a fitted quantile.
  • Editorial extension: The data-driven estimation of the gap function in the appendix substitutes empirical pinball-loss differences for true quantile-error differences; whether that substitution preserves the theorem's deterministic bound is not formally analyzed and would be a natural stress test.
  • Editorial extension: For nonstationary demand, a rolling-window version of the calibration step would restore a form of local exchangeability, but the paper does not quantify how much coverage degrades when exchangeability is only approximate.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a conformalized quantile prediction framework (CQPC/GTLC) for feature-based newsvendor problems under model misspecification. The method splits data into a training set and a calibration set, computes conformity scores as residuals of a base quantile predictor, and adds an empirical quantile of calibration residuals to the base prediction. The paper claims an unconditional marginal coverage guarantee (Theorem 1), conditional coverage guarantees under a gap-function assumption and a margin condition (Theorems 2--4), a confidence interval for the true conditional quantile (Theorem 4), and a data-pooling strategy that trades off data quality and quantity (Section 5). Numerical experiments on simulated data and the Capital Bikeshare dataset report consistent reductions in empirical pinball loss.

Significance. The problem is well-motivated: feature-based newsvendor decisions are sensitive to model misspecification, and conformal calibration offers a plausible remedy. The GTLC algorithm is simple, computationally attractive, and empirically effective in the reported experiments. If the conditional coverage guarantees were rigorously established, the paper would be a useful contribution to data-driven decision-making under misspecification. The strengths are the clean algorithmic idea, the use of a standard split-conformal mechanism, and the breadth of numerical comparisons across four quantile-regression algorithms. However, the current manuscript does not substantiate its central theoretical claims: the proofs are absent, the key gap-function assumption is not satisfied by standard learners with probability one, and the proposed estimator for that assumption is not valid. As written, the conditional-guarantee results rest on unverified structural conditions, so the paper's main novelty is not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Assumption 1] Assumption 1 asserts a deterministic inequality, holding for every pair (x1,x2) in X, between the prediction errors of the sample-dependent quantile estimator qhat_{n1,alpha}. For any standard quantile-regression learner, the left-hand side is a random function of the training data; no finite-sample concentration result of the cited Pan--Zhou type (which is high-probability, not almost sure) implies that such an inequality holds for all realizations. Consequently, Theorems 3 and 4 hold only on the event that Assumption 1 is satisfied, and the paper provides no bound on the probability of that event's failure. This undermines the claimed guarantee that the conformalized quantile is valid 'independent of the correctness of the underlying model.' The assumption should be reformulated as a high-probability condition with the failure probability entering the bounds, or the authors should prove that a specific estimator class satisfies the deterministic inequality.
  2. [§4.2--§5.1] The main theoretical results other than Theorem 1 are stated without proofs. The manuscript contains no proof section; Appendices A and B are devoted to the data-driven selection method and additional numerical results. In particular, the text near Proposition 1 refers to 'the proof' without providing it, and the derivations of the bound phi(Delta,B) in Theorem 3 and of the two-approximation result in Proposition 2 are not shown. A reader cannot verify the central claims of the paper in its current form, which is a load-bearing deficiency for a journal submission.
  3. [Appendix A, κ Estimation] The proposed estimator of the gap function kappa approximates the difference in quantile prediction errors by the difference in empirical pinball losses, justified by the Lipschitz continuity of L. This justification is not sufficient: the pinball loss is Lipschitz but not strongly convex, so a small loss difference can accompany a large shift in the optimal quantile when the conditional density near the quantile is small. Thus the estimated kappa is not an upper bound for the left-hand side of Assumption 1, and the data-driven selection of the pooling diameter using Equation (8) has no theoretical support. At minimum, the authors need to prove a quantitative relation between loss gaps and quantile gaps under Assumption 2, or replace the estimator with one that controls the quantity in Assumption 1 directly.
  4. [§5.1, Eq. (7) and Proposition 1] The specific form kappa(n1,xi)=C sqrt(xi^nu/n1) in Equation (7) is introduced as 'reasonable' without derivation, and the constants C and nu are free parameters that are not estimated or validated against any quantile-regression estimator. In Proposition 1, the additional assumptions n1(B_xi)=rho n xi^iota and n2(B_xi)=(1-rho)n xi^iota are ad hoc and not justified by any metric-space structure or sampling model. The claimed optimal pooling diameter therefore depends on untested functional forms, weakening the paper's stated contribution on balancing data quality and quantity.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §6.2] The abstract reports loss reductions of 'up to 40% on the simulated data and 25% on the real-world dataset,' whereas Section 6.2 reports reductions of 38.6% (simulated) and 47.3% (real data). Please reconcile these numbers.
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (2)] The regularizer lambda_n is introduced in the quantile-regression objective but is never defined or discussed; please clarify whether it is a fixed constant, a tuning parameter, or simply omitted from the definition.
  3. [§4.2, Example 6] In Example 6, the text says 'suppose X follows exponential distribution'; this should presumably be Y. Also, the displayed interval for hbar(Delta) and h(Delta) appears to use the same expression for both bounds; the lower and upper bounds should involve gamma(X) and bar{gamma}(X), respectively.
  4. [§6.1, Experiment Setup] The text refers to 'For CPRP, we subdivide...' which appears to be a typo for the proposed CQPC method. Additionally, the use of the nearest 50 calibration points is described but not connected to the method in Section 5.2.2, where the parameter is denoted m; please align the terminology.
  5. [§6.2, Figure 10] The caption of Figure 10 reads 'Empirical pinball loss for MA model,' but the figure presents results for the Capital Bikeshare real-world dataset. Please correct the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main guarantee is standard split-conformal coverage, and the conditional bounds are explicit conditional results, not self-referential reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is not circular. Algorithm 1 defines the conformalized quantile as q̂c_α(X0)=q̂α(X0)+Q_α(s,I2) with scores s_i=Y_i−q̂α(X_i). Theorem 1 is the standard split-conformal coverage lemma: exchangeability of the calibration scores and the new score makes the rank of s_{n+1} among n2+1 scores uniform, so P(Y_{n+1}≤q̂c_α(X_{n+1})) lies in [α, α+1/(n2+1)]. This is a classical conformal result (the paper cites Romano et al. 2019, Vovk et al., Shafer and Vovk), not an equivalent reformulation of an input. The conditional guarantees in Theorems 2–4 are explicitly conditional on Assumption 1 (gap function) and Assumption 2 (margin condition); the paper does not claim to prove these assumptions for the real data, and it states in Section 4.2 that κ and the margin functions 'could be unknown in practice', deferring their estimation to Appendix A. That estimation is a practical heuristic; plugging estimated functions into Theorem 4 would not automatically preserve the theoretical guarantee, but this is a validity/specification concern rather than a circular derivation. The specific form κ(n1,ξ)=C√(ξ^ν/n1) is introduced as a reasonable assumption motivated by a cited high-probability bound, not as an external theorem that already contains the conclusion. The only self-citation (Qi, Cao, Shen 2022) appears in the literature review and is not load-bearing anywhere in the derivation. No equation reduces by construction to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The conformalized quantile depends on the training model and calibration residuals. The conditional coverage theory additionally depends on the gap function κ, the margin functions h and h̄, and the structural growth assumptions in Proposition 1; these are not derived and are the load-bearing assumptions behind the claimed guarantees. The pooling diameter and the Lipschitz constant in Appendix A are tuned ad hoc.

free parameters (5)
  • Pooling diameter ξ or number of nearest neighbors m = 50 in simulation, 20 in real data
    Selected via cross-validation in the GTLC framework (Section 5.2.2); the optimal value is data-dependent.
  • Constant C in κ(n1,ξ)=C sqrt(ξ^ν/n1) = unspecified
    Introduced ad hoc as a 'reasonable' model for the gap function; no value is given and it is not derived.
  • Exponent ν in the gap function = unspecified
    Assumed in Equation (7); the paper notes ν=0 if all contexts share the same model, but no estimation procedure is provided.
  • Lipschitz scaling η in Appendix A = defined by heuristic formula
    Added to approximate κ via empirical loss differences; no theoretical justification.
  • Margin functions h(Δ) and h̄(Δ) = estimated from data in Appendix A
    The conditional bounds depend on these functions, which are unknown and estimated heuristically.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The data are i.i.d. from an arbitrary joint distribution F_XY
    Assumed in Section 3.1; standard for conformal prediction.
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: A gap function κ exists bounding prediction-error differences across contexts
    Section 4.2; this is the core structural assumption that enables conditional coverage in Theorems 2-4.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: A uniform margin condition holds near the α-quantile
    Section 4.2; needed to translate quantile deviations into probability bounds.
  • ad hoc to paper Specific gap function form κ(n1,ξ)=C sqrt(ξ^ν/n1)
    Equation (7); presented as 'reasonable to assume' after citing Pan and Zhou, but not derived for the general model-free setting.
  • ad hoc to paper In Proposition 1, n1(Bξ)=ρ n ξ^ι and n2(Bξ)=(1-ρ)n ξ^ι
    Used to derive the closed-form optimal pooling diameter; these scaling laws are assumed without empirical support.
  • ad hoc to paper The loss-difference approximation for κ in Appendix A is valid
    The κ estimator is based on an unproven Lipschitz relation between empirical loss and quantile prediction error.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Conformal Approach to Feature-based Newsvendor under Model Misspecification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DJ7TDBHT

@misc{pith2026241213159,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Conformal Approach to Feature-based Newsvendor under Model Misspecification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DJ7TDBHT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13159}
}
read the original abstract

In many data-driven decision-making problems, performance guarantees often depend heavily on the correctness of model assumptions, which may frequently fail in practice. We address this issue in the context of a feature-based newsvendor problem, where demand is influenced by observed features such as demographics and seasonality. To mitigate the impact of model misspecification, we propose a model-free and distribution-free framework inspired by conformal prediction. Our approach consists of two phases: a training phase, which can utilize any type of prediction method, and a calibration phase that conformalizes the model bias. To enhance predictive performance, we explore the balance between data quality and quantity, recognizing the inherent trade-off: more selective training data improves quality but reduces quantity. Importantly, we provide statistical guarantees for the conformalized critical quantile, independent of the correctness of the underlying model. Moreover, we quantify the confidence interval of the critical quantile, with its width decreasing as data quality and quantity improve. We validate our framework using both simulated data and a real-world dataset from the Capital Bikeshare program in Washington, D.C. Across these experiments, our proposed method consistently outperforms benchmark algorithms, reducing newsvendor loss by up to 40% on the simulated data and 25% on the real-world dataset.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution isbn issn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in "" FUNCTION format.date year ...

  3. [3]

    (2023) Conformal prediction: A gentle introduction

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

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Operations Research 67(1):90--108

    Ban GY, Rudin C (2019) The big data newsvendor: Practical insights from machine learning. Operations Research 67(1):90--108

    2019

  5. [5]

    The Annals of Statistics 51(2):816--845

    Barber RF, Candes EJ, Ramdas A, Tibshirani RJ (2023) Conformal prediction beyond exchangeability. The Annals of Statistics 51(2):816--845

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.08424

    Besbes O, Ma W, Mouchtaki O (2023) From contextual data to newsvendor decisions: On the actual performance of data-driven algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.08424

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Service Science 15(2):79--91

    Chen N, Hu M (2023) Frontiers in service science: Data-driven revenue management: The interplay of data, model, and decisions. Service Science 15(2):79--91

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04670

    Chenreddy A, Delage E (2024) End-to-end conditional robust optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04670

    arXiv 2024

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(48):e2107794118

    Chernozhukov V, W \"u thrich K, Zhu Y (2021) Distributional conformal prediction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(48):e2107794118

    2021

  2. [10]

    Progress in Artificial Intelligence 2:113--127

    Fanaee-T H, Gama J (2014) Event labeling combining ensemble detectors and background knowledge. Progress in Artificial Intelligence 2:113--127

    2014

  3. [11]

    Available at SSRN 4668658

    Feng Q, Shanthikumar JG, Wu J (2023) Contextual data-integrated newsvendor solution with operational data analytics (oda). Available at SSRN 4668658

    2023

  4. [12]

    Bernoulli 29(1):1--23

    Fontana M, Zeni G, Vantini S (2023) Conformal prediction: a unified review of theory and new challenges. Bernoulli 29(1):1--23

    2023

  5. [13]

    Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA 10(2):455--482

    Foygel Barber R, Candes EJ, Ramdas A, Tibshirani RJ (2021) The limits of distribution-free conditional predictive inference. Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA 10(2):455--482

    2021

  6. [14]

    Available at SSRN 3885663

    Fu M, Li X, Zhang L (2021) Data-driven feature-based newsvendor: A distributionally robust approach. Available at SSRN 3885663

    2021

  7. [15]

    Journal of the Operational Research Society 44(8):825--834

    Gallego G, Moon I (1993) The distribution free newsboy problem: review and extensions. Journal of the Operational Research Society 44(8):825--834

    1993

  8. [16]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12616

    Gibbs I, Cherian JJ, Cand \`e s EJ (2023) Conformal prediction with conditional guarantees. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12616

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Biometrika 110(1):33--50

    Guan L (2023) Localized conformal prediction: A generalized inference framework for conformal prediction. Biometrika 110(1):33--50

    2023

  10. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13830

    Han J, Hu M, Shen G (2023) Deep neural newsvendor. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13830

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 23

    Hannah L, Powell W, Blei D (2010) Nonparametric density estimation for stochastic optimization with an observable state variable. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 23

    2010

  12. [20]

    The Annals of Statistics 50(5):2899--2924

    He X, Pan X, Tan KM, Zhou WX (2022) Scalable estimation and inference for censored quantile regression process. The Annals of Statistics 50(5):2899--2924

    2022

  13. [21]

    Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 9(1):60--77

    Hunter DR, Lange K (2000) Quantile regression via an mm algorithm. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 9(1):60--77

    2000

  14. [22]

    o m H, L \

    Johansson U, Bostr \"o m H, L \"o fstr \"o m T (2013) Conformal prediction using decision trees. 2013 IEEE 13th international conference on data mining, 330--339 (IEEE)

    2013

  15. [23]

    o m H, L \

    Johansson U, Bostr \"o m H, L \"o fstr \"o m T, Linusson H (2014) Regression conformal prediction with random forests. Machine learning 97:155--176

    2014

  16. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15145

    Jung C, Noarov G, Ramalingam R, Roth A (2022) Batch multivalid conformal prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15145

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Annals of statistics 39(1):305

    Kai B, Li R, Zou H (2011) New efficient estimation and variable selection methods for semiparametric varying-coefficient partially linear models. Annals of statistics 39(1):305

    2011

  18. [26]

    Management Science 69(4):1975--1994

    Kallus N, Mao X (2023) Stochastic optimization forests. Management Science 69(4):1975--1994

    2023

  19. [27]

    omega 27(5):537--553

    Khouja M (1999) The single-period (news-vendor) problem: literature review and suggestions for future research. omega 27(5):537--553

    1999

  20. [28]

    Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society 33--50

    Koenker R, Bassett Jr G (1978) Regression quantiles. Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society 33--50

    1978

  21. [29]

    Koenker R, Chernozhukov V, He X, Peng L (2017) Handbook of quantile regression

    2017

  22. [30]

    Journal of economic perspectives 15(4):143--156

    Koenker R, Hallock KF (2001) Quantile regression. Journal of economic perspectives 15(4):143--156

    2001

  23. [31]

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 76(1):71--96

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

    2014

  24. [32]

    Operations Research 63(6):1294--1306

    Levi R, Perakis G, Uichanco J (2015) The data-driven newsvendor problem: New bounds and insights. Operations Research 63(6):1294--1306

    2015

  25. [33]

    Mathematics of Operations Research 32(4):821--839

    Levi R, Roundy RO, Shmoys DB (2007) Provably near-optimal sampling-based policies for stochastic inventory control models. Mathematics of Operations Research 32(4):821--839

    2007

  26. [34]

    Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 17(1):163--185

    Li Y, Zhu J (2008) L 1-norm quantile regression. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 17(1):163--185

    2008

  27. [35]

    Operations Research 70(4):1996--2012

    Lin M, Huh WT, Krishnan H, Uichanco J (2022) Data-driven newsvendor problem: Performance of the sample average approximation. Operations Research 70(4):1996--2012

    2022

  28. [36]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.07008

    Liu F, Chen Z, Wang R, Wang S (2024) Newsvendor under mean-variance ambiguity and misspecification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.07008

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Operations Research Letters 33(4):341--348

    Liyanage LH, Shanthikumar JG (2005) A practical inventory control policy using operational statistics. Operations Research Letters 33(4):341--348

    2005

  30. [38]

    Journal of machine learning research 7(6)

    Meinshausen N, Ridgeway G (2006) Quantile regression forests. Journal of machine learning research 7(6)

    2006

  31. [39]

    IISE Transactions 52(4):444--463

    Oroojlooyjadid A, Snyder LV, Tak \'a c M (2020) Applying deep learning to the newsvendor problem. IISE Transactions 52(4):444--463

    2020

  32. [40]

    Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA 10(3):813--861

    Pan X, Zhou WX (2021) Multiplier bootstrap for quantile regression: non-asymptotic theory under random design. Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA 10(3):813--861

    2021

  33. [41]

    International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 2485--2493 (PMLR)

    Patel YP, Rayan S, Tewari A (2024) Conformal contextual robust optimization. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 2485--2493 (PMLR)

    2024

  34. [42]

    International conference on machine learning, 4075--4084 (PMLR)

    Pearce T, Brintrup A, Zaki M, Neely A (2018) High-quality prediction intervals for deep learning: A distribution-free, ensembled approach. International conference on machine learning, 4075--4084 (PMLR)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Operations research 56(1):188--203

    Perakis G, Roels G (2008) Regret in the newsvendor model with partial information. Operations research 56(1):188--203

    2008

  36. [44]

    Operations research 47(2):183--194

    Petruzzi NC, Dada M (1999) Pricing and the newsvendor problem: A review with extensions. Operations research 47(2):183--194

    1999

  37. [45]

    Management Science 68(3):1639--1658

    Qi M, Cao Y, Shen ZJ (2022) Distributionally robust conditional quantile prediction with fixed design. Management Science 68(3):1639--1658

    2022

  38. [46]

    European Journal of Operational Research 213(2):361--374

    Qin Y, Wang R, Vakharia AJ, Chen Y, Seref MM (2011) The newsvendor problem: Review and directions for future research. European Journal of Operational Research 213(2):361--374

    2011

  39. [47]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 32

    Romano Y, Patterson E, Candes E (2019) Conformalized quantile regression. Advances in neural information processing systems 32

    2019

  40. [48]

    Operations research 58(3):583--594

    See CT, Sim M (2010) Robust approximation to multiperiod inventory management. Operations research 58(3):583--594

    2010

  41. [49]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research 9(3)

    Shafer G, Vovk V (2008) A tutorial on conformal prediction. Journal of Machine Learning Research 9(3)

    2008

  42. [50]

    International Conference on Machine Learning, 3220--3229 (PMLR)

    Sivakumar V, Banerjee A (2017) High-dimensional structured quantile regression. International Conference on Machine Learning, 3220--3229 (PMLR)

    2017

  43. [51]

    Steinwart I, Christmann A (2011) Estimating conditional quantiles with the help of the pinball loss

    2011

  44. [52]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36:17713--17741

    Sun C, Liu L, Li X (2023) Predict-then-calibrate: A new perspective of robust contextual lp. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36:17713--17741

    2023

  45. [53]

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 84(1):205--233

    Tan KM, Wang L, Zhou WX (2022) High-dimensional quantile regression: Convolution smoothing and concave regularization. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 84(1):205--233

    2022

  46. [54]

    Journal of forecasting 19(4):299--311

    Taylor JW (2000) A quantile regression neural network approach to estimating the conditional density of multiperiod returns. Journal of forecasting 19(4):299--311

    2000

  47. [55]

    Vovk V, Gammerman A, Shafer G (2005) Algorithmic learning in a random world, volume 29 (Springer)

    2005

  48. [56]

    The Annals of Statistics 1566--1590

    Vovk V, Nouretdinov I, Gammerman A (2009) On-line predictive linear regression. The Annals of Statistics 1566--1590

    2009

  49. [57]

    Statistica Sinica 801--817

    Wu Y, Liu Y (2009) Variable selection in quantile regression. Statistica Sinica 801--817

    2009

  50. [58]

    Management Science 70(4):2315--2329

    Zhang L, Yang J, Gao R (2024) Optimal robust policy for feature-based newsvendor. Management Science 70(4):2315--2329

    2024

  51. [59]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.04369

    Zhang T, Chatterjee S (2022) Element-wise estimation error of generalized fused lasso. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.04369

    2022 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Zou H, Yuan M (2008) Composite quantile regression and the oracle model selection theory

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.