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.
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
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
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
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.
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· Journal of Statistical Compu...· 0 citations
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 23, 2026
Assistant Professor Benjamin Lindquist studies how engineers deliberately injected randomness into early AI, giving rise to deep-learning models that sometimes hallucinate.