Skip to content

Exact Risk-Complexity Laws for Projective Boundaries in Scenario Optimization and Distribution-Free Certification

Sep 2026 · 0 citations · 23 references
Engineering Computer Science Mathematics

TL;DR

The framework covers scalar order-statistic calibration, support-reconstructive scenario programs, cascaded support-removal certificates, coordinatewise envelopes, and Pareto-frontier calibration with vector scores and yields conditional probabilistic certificates and a no-go result explaining why observed complexity alone is insufficient.

Abstract

Scenario optimization, conformal prediction, and related distribution-free certification methods use finite samples to construct decisions or prediction sets with violation-risk guarantees for fresh observations. In several classical settings, the conditional violation risk follows an exact beta law, whose tail has a beta-binomial representation and whose parameter is a support, calibration, or compression dimension. This paper identifies the deterministic boundary mechanism behind these formulas and derives the corresponding law when the observed boundary size is random. A decision rule is represented by an acceptance set for future observations, together with a boundary map selecting the sample points responsible for that set. The resulting pair is called a {\em proper projective boundary scheme} when held-out samples are accepted precisely if the full-sample boundary is retained, and accepted non-boundary samples can be deleted without changing that boundary. For every such scheme, the conditional law of the violation risk given the observed boundary size is determined by the boundary's cross-sample complexity profile. A stable profile yields the usual beta law, whereas a varying profile produces an exact profile correction. The framework covers scalar order-statistic calibration, support-reconstructive scenario programs, cascaded support-removal certificates, coordinatewise envelopes, and Pareto-frontier calibration with vector scores. It also yields conditional probabilistic certificates and a no-go result explaining why observed complexity alone is insufficient.

View source

Similar papers

Preprint Aug 2026

Beyond Marginal Validity: Finite-Sample Guarantees for Localized Conformal Prediction

Conformal prediction endows arbitrary black-box predictors with finite-sample, distribution-free marginal coverage, yet marginal validity can hide severe covariate-specific miscalibration, while exact distribution-free conditional coverage is finite-sample unattainable. Randomly localized conformal prediction (RLCP) mi...

Anton Conrad, R. Isaev, D. Belomestny et al. · 0 citations
#machine learning Preprint Aug 2026

A Unified Perspective on Conformal Prediction and Wasserstein Distributionally Robust Optimization for Uncertainty Quantification

A unified probabilistic perspective on CP and DRO is developed by viewing both as ways to turn finite calibration data into a data-dependent quantile estimator that a test score falls below with high probability.

Kehan Long, Yi-Qi Zhao, Pol Mestres et al. · 0 citations
#machine learning Preprint Sep 2026

ReCIRC: Rectified Conformal Risk Control

Many applications of black-box predictive models require controlling task-relevant error rates, such as missed lesion pixels in segmentation or missed labels in multilabel classification. Conformal risk control (CRC; Angelopoulos et al., arXiv:2208.02814) gives distribution-free guarantees for such losses, but it calib...

B. M. Resende, Helton Graziadei, Thiago Ramos et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

ARC: Augmented-Rank Conformalization for Changepoint Localization --- Finite-Sample Validity and Distribution-Robust Efficiency

This work proposes ARC (Augmented-Rank Conformalization), a family of scores depending on the data only through within-segment ranks: rank-CUSUM location and scale channels, their fixed combinations, and a lightweight neural score frozen after synthetic training, which is an efficiency transfer theorem.

Chen-Chen Peng, Mi-Xia Wu, Qi-Jing Yan et al. · 1 citation
#machine learning Preprint Sep 2026

Conformity Breaks Conformal Prediction

It is shown that a score-mechanism shift silently breaks conformal prediction in multi-agent LLM systems, where coverage falls from a calibrated 90% to 74% under unanimous-wrong peers at the standard alpha = 0.10 operating point.

Yi-Bo Hu, Han-Yuan Su · 0 citations
Open access Aug 2026

Exact grid-free confidence-region computation from dependent p -value functions under arbitrary dependence

Repeated sample splitting, cross-fitting, conformal ensembling, and related randomized workflows often produce multiple dependent valid p-value functions for the same target. Existing p-merging theory guarantees pointwise validity under arbitrary dependence, but turning the merged output into a confidence region typica...

Ya Lin · 0 citations

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Oct 23, 2026

Q&A: How AI came to model the “messy” human mind

Assistant Professor Benjamin Lindquist studies how engineers deliberately injected randomness into early AI, giving rise to deep-learning models that sometimes hallucinate.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.