Pith. sign in

REVIEW 11 minor 60 cited by

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge.

T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. The mark states how deep the mechanical check went, never who wrote it. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · claude-opus-4-7

Any pre-trained model can be wrapped into prediction sets with guaranteed finite-sample coverage, regardless of how the model was built or what the data distribution is.

2026-05-09 01:19 UTC pith:UHKNMZPJ

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful tutorial on conformal prediction — not new research, but the best single entry point I know of.

arxiv 2107.07511 v6 pith:UHKNMZPJ submitted 2021-07-15 cs.LG cs.AImath.STstat.MEstat.MLstat.TH

A Gentle Introduction to Conformal Prediction and Distribution-Free Uncertainty Quantification

Anastasios N. Angelopoulos , Stephen Bates This is my paper
classification cs.LG cs.AImath.STstat.MEstat.MLstat.TH MSC 62G1562G0868T05
keywords conformal predictiondistribution-free inferenceuncertainty quantificationprediction setsexchangeabilityquantile regressioncovariate shiftrisk control
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper presents conformal prediction as a single-page recipe for turning any heuristic uncertainty signal — softmax scores, quantile estimates, predicted variances, Bayesian posteriors, OOD detectors — into prediction sets with a non-asymptotic coverage guarantee at a user-chosen level. The guarantee follows from exchangeability of calibration and test points alone, so it survives arbitrarily wrong models. The authors then catalogue what changes when you change the score function: adaptive sets that grow on hard inputs, conformalized quantile regression, conformalized scalar uncertainties, and Bayes-optimal sets when a posterior is available. They extend the recipe to group- and class-conditional coverage, monotone risk control beyond miscoverage, outlier detection, known covariate shift via likelihood-ratio reweighting, and unknown distribution drift via weighted calibration. They also lay out diagnostics: the conditional-on-calibration coverage is Beta-distributed, the empirical coverage over many splits is Beta-Binomial, and adaptivity must be checked separately from marginal coverage via size-stratified or feature-stratified metrics. A companion appendix generalizes to high-probability control of arbitrary, possibly non-monotone risks via multiple testing on a parameter grid.

Core claim

The paper organizes a body of work around a single thesis: any black-box predictor, however badly trained, can be wrapped in a short post-hoc calibration step that produces prediction sets guaranteed to contain the truth with user-specified probability, in finite samples, without assumptions on the model or the data distribution. The wrapper requires only a held-out calibration set, a scalar score function s(x,y) measuring disagreement between an input and a candidate label, and an empirical quantile of those scores. The authors argue this recipe — split conformal prediction — is general enough to cover classification, quantile regression, Bayesian posteriors, outlier detection, segmentation

What carries the argument

The core object is the empirical quantile q̂ of conformal scores s(X_i, Y_i) on a held-out calibration set, taken at level ⌈(n+1)(1−α)⌉/n; the prediction set is {y : s(X_test, y) ≤ q̂}. The work is done by exchangeability: the test score is equally likely to land in any of the n+1 gaps of the sorted calibration scores, which forces marginal coverage ≥ 1−α with no further assumption. Every extension (covariate shift, drift, risk control, group balance) is a re-weighting or re-grouping of this same quantile.

Load-bearing premise

The whole guarantee rests on the calibration data and the future test point being interchangeable — drawn from the same distribution in a way that does not care about order. When that fails (real distribution shift, time series, selection bias), the guarantee degrades, and the patches the paper offers require either knowing the shift or guessing its size.

What would settle it

Run the split-conformal recipe at α=0.1 on a fresh i.i.d. classification or regression task with n≈1000 calibration points, repeat over many random splits, and check that the empirical coverage histogram matches the Beta(n+1−⌊(n+1)α⌋, ⌊(n+1)α⌋) distribution centered at 1−α. A systematic shortfall below 1−α on i.i.d. data, larger than the Beta-Binomial fluctuations the paper tabulates, would falsify the central claim.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Any deployed predictor — including a frozen neural network whose internals are unavailable — can be retrofitted with calibrated prediction sets using only a few hundred labeled holdout points and a few lines of code.
  • Improvements in uncertainty quantification reduce, in practice, to designing better score functions for a given task rather than to proving new coverage theorems.
  • Coverage guarantees extend cleanly past miscoverage to false-negative rate, false-discovery rate, IOU, and other bounded losses, by tuning a threshold on calibration data at a slightly conservative level.
  • Under known covariate shift, reweighting calibration scores by the likelihood ratio restores exact finite-sample coverage; under unknown drift, weighted calibration with a rolling window degrades coverage only in proportion to a total-variation distance.
  • Conditional coverage — the same guarantee for every subgroup or every input — is provably unattainable in general, so practitioners must check feature- and size-stratified coverage as a routine diagnostic rather than expecting marginal coverage to imply fairness across groups.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The framework's real cost is hidden in the choice of score function: validity is free, but informativeness (small sets) inherits all the failure modes of the underlying model, so conformal prediction launders calibration but not capability.
  • Because the guarantee is marginal over the calibration draw, two practitioners running the same procedure on different held-out sets will see coverage that differs by several percentage points; reporting a single conformal interval without the Beta-distribution caveat overstates what was actually controlled.
  • The risk-control extension via multiple testing on a parameter grid effectively recasts uncertainty quantification as a hypothesis-testing problem, which suggests power-versus-conservativeness tradeoffs from multiple-comparison theory will increasingly drive practical performance.
  • The drift bound's dependence on total-variation distance, which is essentially never measurable in deployment, means the time-series guarantees are honest about being heuristic — the actual safety in production comes from short windows and fast recalibration, not from a theorem.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 11 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a self-contained tutorial on conformal prediction (CP) and related distribution-free uncertainty quantification techniques. It presents split CP with the standard marginal coverage guarantee 1−α ≤ P(Y∈C(X)) ≤ 1−α+1/(n+1) (Theorem 1, Appendix D), walks the reader through canonical score functions (APS §2.1, CQR §2.2, scalar uncertainty §2.3, Bayes-optimal §2.4), discusses adaptivity diagnostics and finite-sample coverage fluctuations (§3, Appendix C), and surveys extensions: group/class-conditional CP (§4.1–4.2), conformal risk control (§4.3), outlier detection (§4.4), covariate shift via weighting (§4.5), distribution drift (§4.6), full/cross/CV+ CP (§6), and Learn-then-Test for general risk control (Appendix A–B). Worked examples on Imagenet, MS-COCO, tumor segmentation, weather time-series, and toxic-comment detection are accompanied by short Python snippets and Jupyter notebooks. A historical section (§7) traces the development of CP from algorithmic randomness through to current trends.

Significance. The paper is explicitly expository and does not claim new theorems; its value lies in pedagogy, breadth of coverage, accurate attribution, and reproducibility. As an introduction it succeeds: the split-CP recipe is given in ~10 lines of NumPy with a correct ⌈(n+1)(1−α)⌉/n quantile correction, the proof in Appendix D is the standard exchangeability argument and is correctly stated, and the limits of the framework (marginal vs. conditional coverage, the impossibility result of [87], the continuity requirement for the upper bound, the unmeasurable TV distances in Theorem 4) are honestly disclosed at the relevant points (§3.1, §3.2, footnote 1, §5.3). The accompanying code and notebooks support reproducibility, and the bibliography is comprehensive and current. Tutorials of this scope and accuracy are genuinely useful to the community and have been heavily cited; the manuscript meets the standard for an accepted survey/tutorial.

minor comments (11)
  1. [§1, Eq. (1) and footnote 1] The upper bound 1−α+1/(n+1) requires continuous (tie-free) scores, as later stated in Theorem D.2 and footnote 1. Because Eq. (1) is the very first display in the paper and many readers will only skim, it would help to attach a short parenthetical at Eq. (1) itself (e.g., 'upper bound assumes continuous scores; see Thm. D.2') rather than deferring this caveat to a footnote and Appendix D. The current presentation could leave readers using discrete softmax outputs with the impression that they get the two-sided bound without randomized tie-breaking.
  2. [§1, calibration recipe] When introducing ˆq as the ⌈(n+1)(1−α)⌉/n empirical quantile, it would be worth pointing out explicitly that this requires α ≥ 1/(n+1); otherwise the algorithm returns the trivial set C(X)=Y. This corner case is handled implicitly in the proof of Theorem 1 but is not flagged in the main-text recipe, and beginners running the code with very small calibration sets may be confused.
  3. [§2.1, Eq. (3)] The +1 in 'k = sup{...} + 1' that ensures non-empty sets is stated without comment. A one-line note that this corresponds to the randomized correction of [4] omitted for simplicity (and a pointer to the linked notebook for the randomized version) would help reproducibility, since the deterministic version slightly over-covers.
  4. [§3.2, Table 1] Table 1 reports n(ε) for δ=0.1, α=0.1 only. Given that the surrounding text suggests n≈1000 as a rule of thumb, a second column or remark for at least one other (α,δ) pair (say α=0.05) would make the guidance more transferable; otherwise readers may misapply the n=1000 heuristic outside the regime in which it was computed.
  5. [§4.5, weighted CP] The display defining ˆq(x) as the 1−α quantile of a reweighted distribution silently assumes the scores have been pre-sorted (the manuscript notes this 'for notational convenience'). For a tutorial, an explicit version with general (unsorted) scores, or at least a sentence stating that ties and ordering require care, would prevent implementation bugs. The accompanying code does not appear in this section.
  6. [§4.6, Theorem 4] The bound 1−α−2Σw̃_iε_i contains TV distances ε_i that the manuscript itself acknowledges are 'never known' (§5.3). This is fine as stated, but readers would benefit from a sharper sentence next to Theorem 4 that the bound is best read as a structural statement (not a deployable certificate) and that the practical justification of the fixed-window/decay weights in §5.3 is heuristic. Currently this honest caveat is somewhat buried at the end of §5.3.
  7. [§5.5, Eq. (15) and ˆR+] The selective-classification example invokes the LTT machinery and a Binomial CDF upper bound, but the symbol δ is introduced only inside ˆR+(λ) without the user-facing reminder that the guarantee is now (1−δ) over the calibration draw rather than marginal. Given that earlier sections emphasized α as the only knob, a sentence flagging this shift from expectation-style to high-probability-style guarantees would aid the reader before Appendix A formalizes it.
  8. [Appendix A, Hoeffding p-value] The Hoeffding p-value in §A.1.1 assumes losses bounded in [0,1]. This is implicit in the surrounding text but not stated at the point of definition. Since the Appendix is meant to be a self-contained crash course, the boundedness assumption should be made explicit alongside the formula.
  9. [§7, Historical Notes] The historical section is engaging but in places mixes biographical anecdote with technical history in a way that is hard for a non-specialist to parse (e.g., the Bernoulli sequences/randomness deficiency thread). A short signposting sentence ('readers in a hurry can skip to Current Trends') would help, and the link from randomness deficiency to nonconformity scores deserves one more concrete sentence to make the connection clear.
  10. [Code listings (Figs. 2, 3, 5, 7, 12, 20, 23, 24)] The code samples mix np.quantile with method='higher' (Fig. 2) and interpolation='higher' (Figs. 3, 5) — the latter is the deprecated NumPy keyword. Standardizing on the current keyword and noting the NumPy version assumed would prevent silent deprecation warnings or errors for new users.
  11. [Figure 11 / Appendix C] The Beta(n+1−l, l) distribution of conditional coverage (with l=⌊(n+1)α⌋) is stated and plotted, but the exact relationship between this and the practical 'n≈1000' guideline could be tightened with one displayed inequality (e.g., a Hoeffding-style tail bound for the Beta) so the reader can compute n for their own (α, ε, δ) without running the notebook.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

The referee recommends acceptance and raises no major comments, judging the tutorial accurate, honestly scoped, well-attributed, and reproducible. As there are no specific revision requests, we have nothing substantive to contest or amend. We thank the referee for the careful reading and for confirming that the central guarantees, the proof in Appendix D, the discussion of conditional-coverage limits, and the bibliography are correctly and fairly presented. We will use the opportunity of the next revision only for minor typographical polishing and to refresh pointers to recent follow-up work, leaving the technical content reviewed by the referee unchanged.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The referee recommends acceptance and raises no major comments, noting that the tutorial succeeds at its pedagogical aims, that the split-CP recipe and Appendix D proof are correctly stated, that limitations (marginal vs. conditional coverage, impossibility of [87], continuity for the upper bound, unmeasurable TV distances in Theorem 4) are honestly disclosed at the relevant points, and that the accompanying code/notebooks and bibliography are comprehensive and current.

    Authors: We thank the referee for the careful and thorough reading of the manuscript and for the positive recommendation. We are grateful that the referee has verified the correctness of the central technical statements (Theorem 1 and the Appendix D proof, the ⌈(n+1)(1−α)⌉/n quantile correction in the code), the breadth and currency of the references, and the explicit disclosure of the framework's limitations at the relevant points (footnote 1 on tie-breaking, §3.1 on marginal vs. conditional coverage, §3.2 and Appendix C on finite-sample fluctuations, and §5.3 on the unmeasurability of the TV distances appearing in Theorem 4). Since the referee raised no major comments, no substantive revisions are required in response to this report. We will, however, take the opportunity of the next arXiv revision to fix any minor typographical issues that have been brought to our attention by readers since the v6 posting, and to refresh pointers to fast-moving follow-up work (e.g., online/adaptive conformal under distribution shift and conformal risk control), without altering the technical content the referee has reviewed. We thank the referee again for engaging with the manuscript in detail. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: tutorial reproducing standard, externally-attributed results with a textbook proof.

full rationale

This paper is an expository introduction to conformal prediction. Its central technical claim — Theorem 1 / Theorem D.1, the split-conformal marginal coverage guarantee 1−α ≤ P(Y_test ∈ C(X_test)) ≤ 1−α+1/(n+1) — is attributed to Vovk, Gammerman, and Saunders [5] and proved in Appendix D by the standard exchangeability-of-ranks argument: under exchangeability of (s_1,...,s_n,s_test), P(s_test ≤ s_(k)) = k/(n+1), which immediately yields the bound when ˆq is set to s_⌈(n+1)(1−α)⌉. The proof's hypotheses (exchangeability, quantile definition) do not contain the conclusion; the conclusion follows from a combinatorial fact about ranks of exchangeable variables, which is independent of the present authors. Other major results are similarly attributed and proved or cited externally: CQR (Theorem implied, citing Romano et al. [8]), conformal risk control (Theorem 2, citing [17]), weighted/covariate-shift conformal (Theorem 3, citing Tibshirani et al. [25]), drift (Theorem 4, citing Barber et al. [26]), full conformal (Theorem 5, citing [1]), and Learn-then-Test (Theorem A.1, citing [18]). Self-citations exist (e.g., [4], [17], [18] include the present authors), but they are not load-bearing for the central marginal-coverage theorem, which predates the authors. No "prediction" in the paper is a fitted quantity renamed; ˆq is explicitly a calibration-set quantile and the coverage statement is a probabilistic statement about a held-out test point. The paper is honest about scope limitations the skeptic raised (marginal vs. conditional coverage in §3.1 citing impossibility result [87]; tie-breaking for the upper bound in footnote 1 and §6.1; unmeasurable TV distances in Theorem 4 acknowledged in §5.3). None of these are circular reductions; they are disclosed assumptions. The derivation chain is self-contained against external mathematical facts (exchangeability, order statistics, Hoeffding/Bentkus concentration, Bonferroni/sequential testing), and the cited results are mathematically standard and verifiable. Score: 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Model omitted the axiom ledger; defaulted for pipeline continuity.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 9711 in / 4596 out tokens · 79385 ms · 2026-05-09T01:19:54.790353+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Black-box machine learning models are now routinely used in high-risk settings, like medical diagnostics, which demand uncertainty quantification to avoid consequential model failures. Conformal prediction is a user-friendly paradigm for creating statistically rigorous uncertainty sets/intervals for the predictions of such models. Critically, the sets are valid in a distribution-free sense: they possess explicit, non-asymptotic guarantees even without distributional assumptions or model assumptions. One can use conformal prediction with any pre-trained model, such as a neural network, to produce sets that are guaranteed to contain the ground truth with a user-specified probability, such as 90%. It is easy-to-understand, easy-to-use, and general, applying naturally to problems arising in the fields of computer vision, natural language processing, deep reinforcement learning, and so on. This hands-on introduction is aimed to provide the reader a working understanding of conformal prediction and related distribution-free uncertainty quantification techniques with one self-contained document. We lead the reader through practical theory for and examples of conformal prediction and describe its extensions to complex machine learning tasks involving structured outputs, distribution shift, time-series, outliers, models that abstain, and more. Throughout, there are many explanatory illustrations, examples, and code samples in Python. With each code sample comes a Jupyter notebook implementing the method on a real-data example; the notebooks can be accessed and easily run using our codebase.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 60 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. An Optimal Sauer Lemma Over $k$-ary Alphabets

    cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    A sharp Sauer inequality for multiclass and list prediction is established in terms of the DS dimension, tight for every alphabet size k, list size ℓ, and dimension value.

  2. Adaptive Stopping for Multi-Turn LLM Reasoning

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    MiCP is the first conformal prediction method for multi-turn LLM pipelines that allocates per-turn error budgets to enable adaptive stopping with an overall coverage guarantee, shown to reduce turns and cost on RAG an...

  3. Validate the Dream Before You Trust Its Verdict: Admissibility for World-Model Simulators

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Generative world models used as closed-loop test oracles require a five-level admissibility ladder (L0-L4) because visual fidelity does not predict action-robustness.

  4. Local Conformal Predictions for Calibrated Surrogates

    hep-ph 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    FALCON is a novel conformal prediction technique that learns locally calibrated confidence intervals for neural network surrogates modeling LHC scattering amplitudes.

  5. Self-Organized Conformal Prediction: Reducing Regional Coverage Gaps with Unsupervised Group Discovery

    stat.ML 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    SOCP uses self-organizing maps for unsupervised group discovery to enable local calibration in conformal prediction, reducing regional coverage gaps on benchmarks with small set-size increases while preserving validit...

  6. Navigating the Safety-Fidelity Trade-off: Massive-Variate Time Series Forecasting for Power Systems via Probabilistic Scenarios

    cs.LG 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Introduces PowerPhase benchmark for massive-variate power-system forecasting and PowerForge model that achieves best average rank on safety-fidelity metrics across all tested grids.

  7. Remember with Confidence: Uncertainty Quantification for Spatio-temporal Memory with Probabilistic Guarantees

    cs.CV 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Introduces object-level semantic uncertainty for VLM memory, the UQ-DAAAM refinement system, and probabilistic guarantees that selected high-quality views reduce uncertainty more effectively.

  8. Fast LLM-Based Semantic Filtering: From a Unified Framework to an Adaptive Two-Phase Method

    cs.DB 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    An adaptive two-phase semantic filter using clustering then a hybrid proxy trained on LLM confidence achieves 1.6-2.0x speedup over prior methods at 90% accuracy on 10K document corpora.

  9. Cherry-pick Override: Unsafe Directional Commitment in LLM Judges under Mixed Evidence

    cs.SE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    The paper defines Cherry-pick Override (CCO) as unauthorized directional commitment by LLM judges under mixed evidence and quantifies its prevalence (>84% on AVeriTeC conflicting subset) while testing intervention lad...

  10. MARGIN: Runtime Confidence Calibration for Multi-Agent Foundation Model Coordination

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    MARGIN is an online per-agent per-band calibration method using symmetric exponentially weighted moving averages with Bayesian shrinkage that reduces calibration error 3-6x under distribution shift and improves multi-...

  11. Scale-Calibrated Median-of-Means for Robust Distributed Principal Component Analysis

    stat.ME 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Proposes a scale-calibrated median-of-means estimator for robust aggregation of distributed PCA estimates on the product of Euclidean space and Grassmann manifold.

  12. Conformal Prediction via Transported Beta Laws

    stat.ML 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    The paper derives that calibration-conditional coverage follows a Beta(k, n+1-k) law under continuous i.i.d. exchangeability and quantifies non-i.i.d. departures via Wasserstein distances on transported beta laws, yie...

  13. GRAPHLCP: Structure-Aware Localized Conformal Prediction on Graphs

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    GRAPHLCP improves localized conformal prediction on graphs by using feature-aware densification and Personalized PageRank kernels to incorporate topology for better coverage and efficiency.

  14. TRACE: Transport Alignment Conformal Prediction via Diffusion and Flow Matching Models

    stat.ML 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    TRACE creates valid conformal prediction sets for complex generative models by scoring outputs via averaged denoising or velocity errors along stochastic transport paths instead of likelihoods.

  15. When Does Trimming Help Conformal Prediction? A Retained-Law Diagnostic under Calibration Contamination

    stat.ML 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Trimming helps conformal prediction under contamination precisely when the anomaly score separates retention probabilities without biasing clean scores, otherwise the retained mixture coefficient prevents substantial ...

  16. In-Context Positive-Unlabeled Learning

    stat.ML 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    PUICL is a transformer pretrained on synthetic PU data from structural causal models that solves positive-unlabeled classification via in-context learning without gradient updates or fitting.

  17. Delving into Non-Exchangeability for Conformal Prediction in Graph-Structured Multivariate Time Series

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    SCALE uses Spectral Graph Conditional Exchangeability (SGCE) and graph wavelets to achieve valid coverage and improved efficiency in conformal prediction for non-exchangeable graph time series by conformalizing high-f...

  18. SURE-RAG: Sufficiency and Uncertainty-Aware Evidence Verification for Selective Retrieval-Augmented Generation

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    SURE-RAG aggregates pair-level claim-evidence relations into interpretable signals for selective RAG answering, reaching 0.9075 Macro-F1 on HotpotQA-RAG v3 while providing auditability and reducing unsafe answers by 3...

  19. Intrinsic effective sample size for manifold-valued Markov chain Monte Carlo via kernel discrepancy

    stat.ML 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    An intrinsic effective sample size for manifold MCMC is defined via kernel discrepancy as the number of independent draws yielding equivalent expected squared discrepancy to the target.

  20. A Closed-Form Persistence-Landmark Pipeline for Certified Point-Cloud and Graph Classification

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    PLACE delivers a closed-form certified classification method for point clouds and graphs based on persistent homology with explicit excess-risk bounds, selection rules, and training-time certificates.

  21. Profile Likelihood Inference for Anisotropic Hyperbolic Wrapped Normal Models on Hyperbolic Space

    math.ST 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    The profile maximum likelihood estimator for the location in anisotropic hyperbolic wrapped normal models is strongly consistent, asymptotically normal, and attains the Hájek-Le Cam minimax lower bound under squared g...

  22. Query-Efficient Quantum Approximate Optimization via Graph-Conditioned Trust Regions

    cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A GNN predicts Gaussians over QAOA parameters to create graph-conditioned trust regions that reduce circuit evaluations for MaxCut from 85-343 down to 45 while keeping approximation ratios within 3 points of heuristics.

  23. Adaptive Conformal Anomaly Detection with Time Series Foundation Models for Signal Monitoring

    cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A model-agnostic adaptive conformal anomaly detection approach uses weighted quantile bounds learned from past foundation model predictions to deliver interpretable p-value scores with stable calibration under shifts ...

  24. Causal inference for social network formation

    econ.EM 2026-04 conditional novelty 7.0

    Random team assignments in a professional firm reveal that indirect ties strongly increase new direct tie formation, while effects of degree and local density are smaller and less robust.

  25. Answer Only as Precisely as Justified: Calibrated Claim-Level Specificity Control for Agentic Systems

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Compositional selective specificity (CSS) decomposes generated answers into claims and emits each at the most specific level supported by evidence, raising overcommitment-aware utility from 0.846 to 0.913 on LongFact ...

  26. Diagnosing LLM Judge Reliability: Conformal Prediction Sets and Transitivity Violations

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    LLM judges display per-document transitivity violations in 33-67% of cases despite low aggregate rates, while conformal prediction set widths serve as reliable indicators of document-level difficulty with cross-judge ...

  27. Conformal Margin Risk Minimization: An Envelope Framework for Robust Learning under Label Noise

    cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    CMRM adds a conformal quantile regularization on prediction margins to any loss, improving noisy-label classification accuracy up to 3.39% across methods and benchmarks while preserving performance at zero noise.

  28. Conformal Risk Control under Non-Monotone Losses: Theory and Finite-Sample Guarantees

    stat.ML 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Conformal risk control for bounded non-monotone losses over a grid of size m achieves excess risk of order sqrt(log m / n) with n calibration samples, which is minimax optimal.

  29. Post-Selection Distributional Model Evaluation

    stat.ML 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    PS-DME is a new framework that controls post-selection false coverage rate for distributional KPI estimates via e-values and is provably more sample-efficient than data splitting under explicit conditions.

  30. From Plausibility to Verifiability: Risk-Controlled Generative OCR with Vision-Language Models

    cs.CV 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A model-agnostic Geometric Risk Controller reduces extreme errors in VLM-based OCR by requiring cross-view consensus before accepting outputs.

  31. Safe Planning in Interactive Environments via Iterative Policy Updates and Adversarially Robust Conformal Prediction

    eess.SY 2025-11 conditional novelty 7.0

    The work develops an iterative safe planner that adjusts conformal prediction bounds across policy updates via sensitivity analysis to maintain distribution-free safety guarantees despite interaction-induced distribut...

  32. HNSW with Accuracy Guarantees Using Graph Spanners

    cs.DB 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A tiered Certify-then-Rectify system for HNSW that certifies approximate results statistically and falls back to exact recovery by treating the graph as a spanner whose stretch is bounded via extreme value theory.

  33. OmniPilot: An Uncertainty-Aware LLM Inference Advisor for Heterogeneous GPU Clusters

    cs.DC 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    OmniPilot combines conformal quantile regression with OOD detection to rank LLM serving configurations on mixed GPUs, reporting 6.2% MAPE throughput prediction and 95% top-1 accuracy on 460 benchmark runs while abstai...

  34. Uncertainty Quantification via Invariant-Measure Conformal Prediction

    eess.SY 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Proposes imCP framework that uses independent samples from the invariant measure of a Markov process for conformal calibration in one-step and multi-step predictions of learned dynamical systems.

  35. Privacy-Preserving Decentralized Cooperative Localization with Range-Only Measurements: A Convex Optimization Based Approach

    cs.RO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Develops a privacy-preserving decentralized cooperative localization method using SDP-based maximum volume ellipsoids and dual variable exchange for range-only measurements.

  36. Randomized neural operator for parametric PDEs with fast training and conformal uncertainty quantification

    cs.LG 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    PCA-RaNN recasts latent neural operator learning as PCA-reduced random-feature linear regression, achieving 1-3 orders faster training than standard methods on PDE benchmarks while adding conformal uncertainty quantification.

  37. HJ-SafeDMP: Hamilton-Jacobi Reachability-Guided Dynamic Movement Primitives for Provably Safe Robot Motion

    cs.RO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    HJ-SafeDMP learns a control barrier value function offline from demonstrations via finite-difference HJ recursion and uses it as a closed-form safety filter on DMP outputs, with conformal prediction for coverage guarantees.

  38. BetXplain: An Explanation-Annotated Dataset for Detecting Manipulative Betting Advertisements on Social Media

    cs.LG 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    The authors introduce an explanation-annotated dataset of manipulative betting advertisements collected from Instagram and Reddit to support explainable detection models.

  39. Uncertainty Quantification for Computer-Use Agents: A Benchmark across Vision-Language Models and GUI Grounding Datasets

    cs.LG 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Argus benchmark shows UQ method rankings for GUI grounding agents are stable within models across datasets but degrade across model classes and to closed-source vendors.

  40. Reliable Conformal Prediction for Ordinal Classification Using the Ranked Probability Score

    cs.LG 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    RPS-based conformal prediction for ordinal classification yields median-centered contiguous sets with a favorable width-miscoverage tradeoff compared to prior methods.

  41. Neural Conjugate Aggregation: Identifiable Unsupervised Multi-Sensor Regression under Heterogeneous Sensor Bias

    cs.LG 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    NCAM is a hierarchical Bayesian model using neural networks and conjugate Gaussian inference to learn sensor-specific biases for unsupervised multi-source regression, with added conformal prediction for coverage guarantees.

  42. PRecover 1.0: Process Rate Recovery with Machine Learning

    physics.ao-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Machine learning models recover most warm-rain and ice microphysical process rates from standard ICON model outputs for accumulation intervals of 10 minutes or less using a two-step classification-regression approach ...

  43. Show, Don't Ask: Generative Visual Disambiguation for Composed Image Retrieval with Turn-Valid Coverage

    cs.CV 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    CLARA achieves turn-valid conformal coverage in ambiguous composed image retrieval by replacing text clarification with user selection among snapped real-image prototypes and reweighting calibration accordingly.

  44. An Energy-Driven Framework for Privacy-Aware Synthetic Data Generation

    stat.ME 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    An energy-based constrained sampling method generates privacy-aware synthetic mixed-type tabular data while aiming to preserve predictive utility and limit memorization.

  45. Gaming-Resistant Insurance Contracts for Autonomous AI Agents: Strategy-Proof Toll Mechanism Design

    cs.GT 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    The paper characterizes a five-attack space for AI-agent insurance and proves joint incentive compatibility by adding common-control aggregation, interface escalation fees, and model-identity menus to a base runtime, ...

  46. Conformal Bayes under Label Shift: Post-Hoc Calibration vs. In-Training Adaptation

    stat.ML 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Compares post-hoc vs. in-training strategies for conformal Bayes under label shift, finding regime-dependent efficiency gains with up to 43% narrower sets in high-dimensional cases.

  47. SPACR: Single-Pass Adaptive Training of Uncertainty-Aware Conformal Regressors

    cs.LG 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    SPACR is a single-pass training method for conformal regressors that jointly optimizes validity and efficiency to yield valid intervals at multiple confidence levels from one model.

  48. Operator learning for the 2D incompressible Navier-Stokes equations: a conformal prediction approach in the data-scarce regime

    cs.LG 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A perturbation-based conformal prediction wrapper on Fourier Neural Operators yields narrower uncertainty bands than prior methods for 2D incompressible Navier-Stokes while preserving coverage in data-scarce regimes.

  49. Conformal Prediction for Neural Operators: Distribution-Free Uncertainty Quantification in Physics Simulation

    cs.LG 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    First application of split conformal prediction to neural operators, providing distribution-free intervals with 89.1% empirical coverage on heat conduction benchmarks and an adaptive normalized variant using MC Dropout.

  50. Co-GLANCE: Uncertainty-Aware Active Perception for Heterogeneous Robot Teaming

    cs.LG 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Co-GLANCE distills vision-language models into an end-to-end onboard model for occlusion segmentation and robot allocation, using conformal prediction plus selective abstention to trigger active perception and achieve...

  51. Uncertainty-Aware Intention Prediction for Human-to-Robot Assembly Teleoperation

    cs.RO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Human-to-robot transfer learning with conformal prediction improves robot assembly action segmentation Edit score from 70.50 to 80.70 using only 16 robot demonstrations.

  52. Architecture-Adaptive Uncertainty Fusion for Deepfake Detection

    cs.CV 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    COF fuses epistemic, aleatoric, calibration, conformal and distributional uncertainties via simplex optimization of Pearson correlation with errors, outperforming alternatives under distribution shift on CelebDF but c...

  53. Caught in the Act(ivation): Toward Pre-Output and Multi-Turn Detection of Credential Exfiltration by LLM Agents

    cs.CR 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Activation probes, calibrated honeytokens, and multi-turn leakage accounting detect credential exfiltration attempts in LLM agents with high accuracy in controlled open-model tests.

  54. Scalable Uncertainty Quantification for Extreme Weather Forecasting via Empirical Neural Tangent Kernels

    cs.LG 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    NTK-UQ produces 31-37% sharper 90% prediction intervals than split conformal prediction for extreme weather forecasts, with adaptive scaling via architecture-dependent eigenvalue truncation and ICA decomposition of la...

  55. SAFEVPR: Patch-Based Conformal Verification for Safe Cross-Condition Sequence Visual Place Recognition

    cs.RO 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    SAFEVPR achieves empirical FDR control (mean accepted FDR 0.014) on all 23 cross-condition VPR setups while maintaining mean TPR 0.75 by combining MNN patch scores with binned Mondrian conformal thresholds.

  56. Trajectory-Based Difficulty Scoring for Reliable Learning on Tabular Data

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    TDS uses per-tree prediction trajectories to derive instance difficulty scores that rank errors better than prior hardness measures and improve active learning, selective prediction, and Mondrian conformal prediction ...

  57. MARGIN: Runtime Confidence Calibration for Multi-Agent Foundation Model Coordination

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    MARGIN is an online calibration technique using symmetric EWMA and Bayesian shrinkage that learns per-agent per-band factors from the task stream, cutting calibration error 3-6x versus design-time baselines and liftin...

  58. BalanceRAG: Joint Risk Calibration for Cascaded Retrieval-Augmented Generation

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    BalanceRAG uses sequential graphical testing on a 2D lattice of threshold pairs to certify safe operating points that meet target risk levels in cascaded RAG while increasing coverage.

  59. Conditional Predictive Inference for General Structured Data with Group Symmetries

    stat.ME 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    C-SymmPI reformulates conditional coverage as miscoverage error over a user-specified function class to deliver near-conditional guarantees under group symmetries and distributional invariance.

  60. Efficient Online Conformal Selection with Limited Feedback

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    ACI update on dual variable yields adversarial validity and stochastic efficiency for online conformal selection with bandit feedback.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

137 extracted references · 137 canonical work pages · cited by 107 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    V. Vovk, A. Gammerman, and G. Shafer, Algorithmic Learning in a Random World . Springer, 2005

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    Inductive confidence machines for regression,

    H. Papadopoulos, K. Proedrou, V. Vovk, and A. Gammerman, “Inductive confidence machines for regression,” in Machine Learning: European Conference on Machine Learning , 2002, pp. 345–356

    work page 2002

  3. [3]

    Distribution-free prediction bands for non-parametric regression,

    J. Lei and L. Wasserman, “Distribution-free prediction bands for non-parametric regression,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B: Statistical Methodology , pp. 71–96, 2014

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Uncertainty sets for image classifiers using conformal prediction,

    A. N. Angelopoulos, S. Bates, J. Malik, and M. I. Jordan, “Uncertainty sets for image classifiers using conformal prediction,” in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Machine-learning applications of algorithmic random- ness,

    V. Vovk, A. Gammerman, and C. Saunders, “Machine-learning applications of algorithmic random- ness,” in International Conference on Machine Learning , 1999, pp. 444–453

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    Least ambiguous set-valued classifiers with bounded error levels,

    M. Sadinle, J. Lei, and L. Wasserman, “Least ambiguous set-valued classifiers with bounded error levels,” Journal of the American Statistical Association , vol. 114, pp. 223–234, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Cand `es

    Y. Romano, M. Sesia, and E. J. Cand` es, “Classification with valid and adaptive coverage,”arXiv:2006.02544, 2020

    work page arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    Conformalized quantile regression,

    Y. Romano, E. Patterson, and E. Cand` es, “Conformalized quantile regression,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 32, 2019, pp. 3543–3553

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    Regression quantiles,

    R. Koenker and G. Bassett Jr, “Regression quantiles,” Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 33–50, 1978

    work page 1978

  10. [10]

    Image-to-image regression with distribution-free uncertainty quantification and applications in imaging,

    A. N. Angelopoulos, A. P. Kohli, S. Bates, M. I. Jordan, J. Malik, T. Alshaabi, S. Upadhyayula, and Y. Romano, “Image-to-image regression with distribution-free uncertainty quantification and applications in imaging,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.05265 , 2022. 32

    work page arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    Bayes-optimal prediction with frequentist coverage control,

    P. Hoff, “Bayes-optimal prediction with frequentist coverage control,” arXiv:2105.14045, 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Frasian inference,

    L. Wasserman, “Frasian inference,” Statistical Science, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 322–325, 2011

    work page 2011

  13. [13]

    Comparing the bayes and typicalness frame- works,

    T. Melluish, C. Saunders, I. Nouretdinov, and V. Vovk, “Comparing the bayes and typicalness frame- works,” in European Conference on Machine Learning, Springer, 2001, pp. 360–371

    work page 2001

  14. [14]

    Conditional validity of inductive conformal predictors,

    V. Vovk, “Conditional validity of inductive conformal predictors,” in Proceedings of the Asian Con- ference on Machine Learning, vol. 25, 2012, pp. 475–490

    work page 2012

  15. [15]

    Knowing what you know: Valid and validated confidence sets in multiclass and multilabel prediction,

    M. Cauchois, S. Gupta, and J. Duchi, “Knowing what you know: Valid and validated confidence sets in multiclass and multilabel prediction,” arXiv:2004.10181, 2020

    work page arXiv 2004

  16. [16]

    Improving conditional coverage via orthogonal quantile regression,

    S. Feldman, S. Bates, and Y. Romano, “Improving conditional coverage via orthogonal quantile regression,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2021

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    Angelopoulos and Stephen Bates and Adam Fisch and Lihua Lei and Tal Schuster , title =

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

    work page arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Angelopoulos, Stephen Bates, Emmanuel J

    A. N. Angelopoulos, S. Bates, E. J. Cand` es, M. I. Jordan, and L. Lei, “Learn then test: Calibrating predictive algorithms to achieve risk control,” arXiv:2110.01052, 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    A review of novelty detection,

    M. A. Pimentel, D. A. Clifton, L. Clifton, and L. Tarassenko, “A review of novelty detection,” Signal Processing, vol. 99, pp. 215–249, 2014

    work page 2014

  20. [20]

    Design of experiments,

    R. A. Fisher, “Design of experiments,” British Medical Journal, vol. 1, no. 3923, p. 554, 1936

    work page 1936

  21. [21]

    Significance tests which may be applied to samples from any populations,

    E. J. Pitman, “Significance tests which may be applied to samples from any populations,” Supplement to the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society , vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 119–130, 1937

    work page 1937

  22. [22]

    Testing exchangeability on-line,

    V. Vovk, I. Nouretdinov, and A. Gammerman, “Testing exchangeability on-line,” in Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-03) , 2003, pp. 768–775

    work page 2003

  23. [23]

    Prediction and outlier detection in classification problems

    L. Guan and R. Tibshirani, “Prediction and outlier detection in classification problems,” arXiv:1905.04396, 2019

    work page Pith review arXiv 1905

  24. [24]

    Testing for outliers with conformal p-values,

    S. Bates, E. Cand` es, L. Lei, Y. Romano, and M. Sesia, “Testing for outliers with conformal p-values,” arXiv:2104.08279, 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Conformal prediction under covariate shift,

    R. J. Tibshirani, R. Foygel Barber, E. Candes, and A. Ramdas, “Conformal prediction under covariate shift,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 , 2019, pp. 2530–2540

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    Candes, Aaditya Ramdas, and Ryan J

    R. F. Barber, E. J. Candes, A. Ramdas, and R. J. Tibshirani, “Conformal prediction beyond ex- changeability,” arXiv:2202.13415, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

    Conformal prediction with localization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.08558,

    L. Guan, “Conformal prediction with localization,” arXiv:1908.08558, 2020

    work page arXiv 1908

  28. [28]

    Microsoft coco: Common objects in context,

    T.-Y. Lin, M. Maire, S. Belongie, J. Hays, P. Perona, D. Ramanan, P. Doll´ ar, and C. L. Zitnick, “Microsoft coco: Common objects in context,” in European conference on computer vision, Springer, 2014, pp. 740–755

    work page 2014

  29. [29]

    Shifts: A dataset of real distributional shift across multiple large-scale tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.07455, 2021

    A. Malinin, N. Band, G. Chesnokov, Y. Gal, M. J. Gales, A. Noskov, A. Ploskonosov, L. Prokhorenkova, I. Provilkov, V. Raina, et al., “Shifts: A dataset of real distributional shift across multiple large-scale tasks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.07455 , 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    CatBoost: gradient boosting with categorical features support

    A. V. Dorogush, V. Ershov, and A. Gulin, “Catboost: Gradient boosting with categorical features support,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.11363 , 2018

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    Adaptive conformal inference under distribution shift, 2021

    I. Gibbs and E. Cand` es, “Adaptive conformal inference under distribution shift,” arXiv:2106.00170, 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    Adaptive conformal predictions for time series,

    M. Zaffran, O. F´ eron, Y. Goude, J. Josse, and A. Dieuleveut, “Adaptive conformal predictions for time series,” in International Conference on Machine Learning , PMLR, 2022, pp. 25 834–25 866

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research 25, 1–36

    I. Gibbs and E. Cand` es, “Conformal inference for online prediction with arbitrary distribution shifts,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.08401 , 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    Conformal prediction interval for dynamic time-series,

    C. Xu and Y. Xie, “Conformal prediction interval for dynamic time-series,” in International Confer- ence on Machine Learning , PMLR, 2021, pp. 11 559–11 569. 33

    work page 2021

  35. [35]

    Hanu and Unitary team, Detoxify, Github

    L. Hanu and Unitary team, Detoxify, Github. https://github.com/unitaryai/detoxify, 2020

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding

    J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional trans- formers for language understanding,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805 , 2018

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  37. [37]

    Wilds: A benchmark of in-the-wild distribution shifts,

    P. W. Koh, S. Sagawa, H. Marklund, S. M. Xie, M. Zhang, A. Balsubramani, W. Hu, M. Yasunaga, R. L. Phillips, I. Gao, et al., “Wilds: A benchmark of in-the-wild distribution shifts,” in International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2021, pp. 5637–5664

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    A tutorial on conformal prediction,

    G. Shafer and V. Vovk, “A tutorial on conformal prediction,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 9, no. Mar, pp. 371–421, 2008

    work page 2008

  39. [39]

    Computing full conformal prediction set with approximate homotopy,

    E. Ndiaye and I. Takeuchi, “Computing full conformal prediction set with approximate homotopy,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2019

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    Root-finding approaches for computing conformal prediction set,

    E. Ndiaye and I. Takeuchi, “Root-finding approaches for computing conformal prediction set,” Ma- chine Learning, 2022

    work page 2022

  41. [41]

    Cross-conformal predictors,

    V. Vovk, “Cross-conformal predictors,” Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence , vol. 74, no. 1-2, pp. 9–28, 2015

    work page 2015

  42. [42]

    Predictive inference with the jack- knife+,

    R. F. Barber, E. J. Candes, A. Ramdas, and R. J. Tibshirani, “Predictive inference with the jack- knife+,” The Annals of Statistics , vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 486–507, 2021

    work page 2021

  43. [43]

    Exact and asymptotically robust permutation tests,

    E. Chung and J. P. Romano, “Exact and asymptotically robust permutation tests,” The Annals of Statistics, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 484–507, 2013

    work page 2013

  44. [44]

    On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other,

    H. B. Mann and D. R. Whitney, “On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other,” The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , pp. 50–60, 1947

    work page 1947

  45. [45]

    The power of rank tests,

    E. L. Lehmann, “The power of rank tests,” The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , pp. 23–43, 1953

    work page 1953

  46. [46]

    Sidak, P

    Z. Sidak, P. K. Sen, and J. Hajek, Theory of rank tests . Elsevier, 1999

    work page 1999

  47. [47]

    Efron and R

    B. Efron and R. J. Tibshirani, An introduction to the bootstrap. CRC press, 1994

    work page 1994

  48. [48]

    Distribution-free cumulative sum control charts using bootstrap-based control limits,

    S. Chatterjee and P. Qiu, “Distribution-free cumulative sum control charts using bootstrap-based control limits,” The Annals of Applied Statistics , vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 349–369, 2009

    work page 2009

  49. [49]

    G. T. Fechner, Kollektivmasslehre. Engelmann, 1897

    work page

  50. [50]

    Grundlagen der wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung,

    R. von Mises, “Grundlagen der wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung,” Mathematische Zeitschrift, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 52–99, 1919

    work page 1919

  51. [51]

    Die widerspruchfreiheit des kollectivbegriffes der wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung,

    A. Wald, “Die widerspruchfreiheit des kollectivbegriffes der wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung,” Ergebnisse Eines Mathematischen Kolloquiums , vol. 8, no. 38-72, p. 37, 1937

    work page 1937

  52. [52]

    On the concept of a random sequence,

    A. Church, “On the concept of a random sequence,” Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society , vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 130–135, 1940

    work page 1940

  53. [53]

    Etude critique de la notion de collectif,

    J. Ville, “Etude critique de la notion de collectif,” Bull. Amer. Math. Soc , vol. 45, no. 11, p. 824, 1939

    work page 1939

  54. [54]

    The sources of Kolmogorov’s Grundbegriffe,

    G. Shafer and V. Vovk, “The sources of Kolmogorov’s Grundbegriffe,” Statistical Science, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 70–98, 2006

    work page 2006

  55. [55]

    Kolmogorov’s complexity conception of probability,

    V. Vovk, “Kolmogorov’s complexity conception of probability,” Synthese Library, pp. 51–70, 2001

    work page 2001

  56. [56]

    Kolmogorov on the role of randomness in probability theory,

    C. P. Porter, “Kolmogorov on the role of randomness in probability theory,” Mathematical Structures in Computer Science , vol. 24, no. 3, 2014

    work page 2014

  57. [57]

    Three approaches to the quantitative definition of information,

    A. N. Kolmogorov, “Three approaches to the quantitative definition of information,” Problems of Information Transmission, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 1965

    work page 1965

  58. [58]

    Logical basis for information theory and probability theory,

    A. Kolmogorov, “Logical basis for information theory and probability theory,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 662–664, 1968

    work page 1968

  59. [59]

    Combinatorial foundations of information theory and the calculus of probabili- ties,

    A. N. Kolmogorov, “Combinatorial foundations of information theory and the calculus of probabili- ties,” Russian Mathematical Surveys , vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 29–40, 1983. 34

    work page 1983

  60. [60]

    On the concept of the Bernoulli property,

    V. G. Vovk, “On the concept of the Bernoulli property,” Russian Mathematical Surveys, vol. 41, no. 1, p. 247, 1986

    work page 1986

  61. [61]

    Testing randomness online,

    V. Vovk, “Testing randomness online,” Statistical Science, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 595–611, 2021

    work page 2021

  62. [62]

    Sophistication as randomness deficiency,

    F. Mota, S. Aaronson, L. Antunes, and A. Souto, “Sophistication as randomness deficiency,” in International Workshop on Descriptional Complexity of Formal Systems , Springer, 2013, pp. 172– 181

    work page 2013

  63. [63]

    Determination of sample sizes for setting tolerance limits,

    S. S. Wilks, “Determination of sample sizes for setting tolerance limits,” Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 91–96, 1941

    work page 1941

  64. [64]

    Statistical prediction with special reference to the problem of tolerance limits,

    ——, “Statistical prediction with special reference to the problem of tolerance limits,” Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 400–409, 1942

    work page 1942

  65. [65]

    An extension of Wilks’ method for setting tolerance limits,

    A. Wald, “An extension of Wilks’ method for setting tolerance limits,” Annals of Mathematical Statis- tics, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 45–55, 1943

    work page 1943

  66. [66]

    Non-parametric estimation II. Statistically equivalent blocks and tolerance regions–the continuous case,

    J. W. Tukey, “Non-parametric estimation II. Statistically equivalent blocks and tolerance regions–the continuous case,” Annals of Mathematical Statistics , vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 529–539, 1947

    work page 1947

  67. [67]

    Finite exchangeable sequences,

    P. Diaconis and D. Freedman, “Finite exchangeable sequences,” The Annals of Probability , pp. 745– 764, 1980

    work page 1980

  68. [68]

    Exchangeability and related topics,

    D. J. Aldous, “Exchangeability and related topics,” in ´Ecole d’ ´Et´ e de Probabilit´ es de Saint-Flour XIII—1983, 1985, pp. 1–198

    work page 1983

  69. [69]

    Funzione caratteristica di un fenomeno aleatorio,

    B. De Finetti, “Funzione caratteristica di un fenomeno aleatorio,” in Atti del Congresso Internazionale dei Matematici: Bologna del 3 al 10 de Settembre di 1928 , 1929, pp. 179–190

    work page 1928

  70. [70]

    Bernard Friedman’s urn,

    D. A. Freedman, “Bernard Friedman’s urn,” The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , pp. 956–970, 1965

    work page 1965

  71. [71]

    Symmetric measures on Cartesian products,

    E. Hewitt and L. J. Savage, “Symmetric measures on Cartesian products,” Transactions of the Amer- ican Mathematical Society, vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 470–501, 1955

    work page 1955

  72. [72]

    Uses of exchangeability,

    J. F. Kingman, “Uses of exchangeability,” The Annals of Probability, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 183–197, 1978

    work page 1978

  73. [73]

    Dobriban, Topics in Modern Statistical Learning (STAT 991, UPenn, 2022 Spring) , Dec

    E. Dobriban, Topics in Modern Statistical Learning (STAT 991, UPenn, 2022 Spring) , Dec. 2022

    work page 2022

  74. [74]

    Learning by transduction,

    A. Gammerman, V. Vovk, and V. Vapnik, “Learning by transduction,” Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence , vol. 14, pp. 148–155, 1998

    work page 1998

  75. [75]

    Transduction with confidence and credibility,

    C. Saunders, A. Gammerman, and V. Vovk, “Transduction with confidence and credibility,” 1999

    work page 1999

  76. [76]

    On-line confidence machines are well-calibrated,

    V. Vovk, “On-line confidence machines are well-calibrated,” in The 43rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science , IEEE, 2002, pp. 187–196

    work page 2002

  77. [77]

    Self-calibrating probability forecasting.,

    V. Vovk, G. Shafer, and I. Nouretdinov, “Self-calibrating probability forecasting.,” in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, 2003, pp. 1133–1140

    work page 2003

  78. [78]

    Venn-Abers predictors

    V. Vovk and I. Petej, “Venn-Abers predictors,” arXiv:1211.0025, 2012

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  79. [79]

    Nonparametric predictive distributions based on conformal prediction,

    V. Vovk, J. Shen, V. Manokhin, and M.-g. Xie, “Nonparametric predictive distributions based on conformal prediction,” Machine Learning, pp. 1–30, 2017

    work page 2017

  80. [80]

    Efficient Nonparametric Conformal Prediction Regions

    J. Lei, J. Robins, and L. Wasserman, “Efficient nonparametric conformal prediction regions,” arXiv:1111.1418, 2011

    work page Pith review arXiv 2011

Showing first 80 references.