Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 2

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Conformal Prediction Sets with Limited False Positives

Fisch, Adam, Schuster, Tal, Jaakkola, Tommi, Barzilay, Regina·2022·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2202.07650arXiv 2202.07650
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We develop a new approach to multi-label conformal prediction in which we aim to output a precise set of promising prediction candidates with a bounded number of incorrect answers. Standard conformal prediction provides the ability to adapt to model uncertainty by constructing a calibrated candidate set in place of a single prediction, with guarantees that the set contains the correct answer with high probability. In order to obey this coverage property, however, conformal sets can become inundated with noisy candidates -- which can render them unhelpful in practice. This is particularly relevant to practical applications where there is a limited budget, and the cost (monetary or otherwise) associated with false positives is non-negligible. We propose to trade coverage for a notion of precision by enforcing that the presence of incorrect candidates in the predicted conformal sets (i.e., the total number of false positives) is bounded according to a user-specified tolerance. Subject to this constraint, our algorithm then optimizes for a generalized notion of set coverage (i.e., the true positive rate) that allows for any number of true answers for a given query (including zero). We demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach across a number of classification tasks in natural language processing, computer vision, and computational chemistry.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2202.07650

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

  • EfficientDet: Scalable and Efficient Object Detection

    Tan, M., Pang, R., & Le, Q. V. (2019) · arXiv · Cited by 9,841 · cited 3×

    “The EfficientDet model (Tan et al., 2020) 3 for extracting bounding boxes uses a pipeline of three neural networks to extract deep features, and then predict candidates.”

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 54

  1. Jonathan Alvarsson, Staffan Arvidsson McShane, Ulf Norinder, and Ola Spjuth. Predicting with confidence: Using conformal prediction in drug discovery. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 110(1):42-49, 2021.
  2. Anastasios Nikolas Angelopoulos, Stephen Bates, Em- manuel J. Candès, Michael I. Jordan, and Lihua Lei. Learn then test: Calibrating predictive algorithms to achieve risk control. ArXiv preprint: 2110.01052, 2021a. · arXiv
  3. Anastasios Nikolas Angelopoulos, Stephen Bates, Jitendra Malik, and Michael I. Jordan. Uncertainty sets for image classifiers using conformal prediction. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021c.
  4. Arsenii Ashukha, Alexander Lyzhov, Dmitry Molchanov, and Dmitry Vetrov. Pitfalls of in-domain uncertainty esti- mation and ensembling in deep learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2020.
  5. Rina Foygel Barber. Is distribution-free inference possible for binary regression? Electronic Journal of Statistics, 14 (2):3487 -3524, 2020.
  6. Stephen Bates, Anastasios Nikolas Angelopoulos, Lihua Lei, Jitendra Malik, and Michael I. Jordan. Distribution free, risk controlling prediction sets. ArXiv preprint: 2101.02703, 2020. · arXiv
  7. Stephen Bates, Emmanuel Candès, Lihua Lei, Yaniv Ro- mano, and Matteo Sesia. Testing for outliers with confor- mal p-values. ArXiv preprint: 2104.08279, 2021. · arXiv
  8. Yoav Benjamini and Yosef Hochberg. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology), 1995.
  9. Glenn W. Brier. Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability. Monthly Weather Review, 78:1-3, 1950.
  10. Maxime Cauchois, Suyash Gupta, and John C. Duchi. Knowing what you know: valid and validated confidence sets in multiclass and multilabel prediction. Journal of Machine Learning Research (JMLR), 2021.
  11. Olive Jean Dunn. Multiple comparisons among means. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 56(293), 1961.
  12. Ran El-Yaniv and Yair Wiener. On the foundations of noise- free selective classification. Journal of Machine Learning Research (JMLR), 11, 2010.
  13. Adam Fisch, Tal Schuster, Tommi Jaakkola, and Regina Barzilay. Efficient conformal prediction via cascaded inference with expanded admission. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021a.
  14. Adam Fisch, Tal Schuster, Tommi Jaakkola, and Regina Barzilay. Few-shot conformal prediction with auxiliary tasks. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2021b.
  15. Yarin Gal and Zoubin Ghahramani. Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning. In International Conference on Machine Learn- ing (ICML), 2016.
  16. Alexander Gammerman and Vladimir Vovk. Hedging Pre- dictions in Machine Learning: The Second Computer Journal Lecture . The Computer Journal, 50(2), 2007.
  17. Yonatan Geifman and Ran El-Yaniv. Selective classifica- tion for deep neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2017.
  18. David L. Gold, Jeffrey C. Miecznikowski, and Song Liu. Error control variability in pathway-based microarray analysis. Bioinformatics, 25(17):2216-2221, 2009.
  19. Alex Graves. Practical variational inference for neural net- works. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2011.
  20. Chuan Guo, Geoff Pleiss, Yu Sun, and Kilian Q. Weinberger. On calibration of modern neural networks. In Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2017.
  21. Chirag Gupta, Arun K. Kuchibhotla, and Aaditya K. Ram- das. Nested conformal prediction and quantile out-of-bag ensemble methods. arXiv: 1910.10562, 2019. · arXiv
  22. Chirag Gupta, Aleksandr Podkopaev, and Aaditya Ram- das. Distribution-free binary classification: prediction sets, confidence intervals and calibration. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2020.
  23. José Miguel Hernández-Lobato and Ryan P. Adams. Proba- bilistic backpropagation for scalable learning of bayesian neural networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2015.
  24. Lior Hirschfeld, Kyle Swanson, Kevin Yang, Regina Barzi- lay, and Connor W. Coley. Uncertainty quantification using neural networks for molecular property prediction. ArXiv preprint: 2005.10036, 2020. · arXiv
  25. Peter Hoff. Bayes-optimal prediction with frequentist cov- erage control. ArXiv preprint: 2105.14045, 2021. · arXiv
  26. Volodymyr Kuleshov, Nathan Fenner, and Stefano Ermon. Accurate uncertainties for deep learning using calibrated regression. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2018.
  27. Ananya Kumar, Percy Liang, and Tengyu Ma. Verified un- certainty calibration. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2019.
  28. Zhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel, Piyush Sharma, and Radu Soricut. Albert: A lite bert for self-supervised learning of language representa- tions. In International Conference on Learning Represen- tations (ICLR), 2020.
  29. E. L. Lehmann and Joseph P. Romano. Generalizations of the familywise error rate. Annals of Statistics, 33(3), 2005.
  30. Jing Lei. Classification with confidence. Biometrika, 101 (4):755-769, 10 2014.
  31. Jing Lei, Max G'Sell, Alessandro Rinaldo, Ryan J. Tibshi- rani, and Larry Wasserman. Distribution-free predictive inference for regression. Journal of the American Statis- tical Association, 113(523):1094-1111, 2018.
  32. Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge J. Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dollár, and C. Lawrence Zitnick. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2014.
  33. Andreas Mayr, Günter Klambauer, Thomas Unterthiner, Marvin Steijaert, Joerg Wegner, Hugo Ceulemans, Djork- Arné Clevert, and Sepp Hochreiter. Large-scale compari- son of machine learning methods for drug target predic- tion on chembl. Chemical Science, 9(24), 2018.
  34. Allan H. Murphy and Edward S. Epstein. Verification of probabilistic predictions: A brief review. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 6(5):748 -755, 1967.
  35. Radford M. Neal. Bayesian Learning for Neural Networks. Springer-Verlag, 1996. ISBN 0387947248.
  36. Alexandru Niculescu-Mizil and Rich Caruana. Predicting good probabilities with supervised learning. In Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2005.
  37. Harris Papadopoulos. Inductive conformal prediction: The- ory and application to neural networks. In Tools in Artifi- cial Intelligence, chapter 18. IntechOpen, Rijeka, 2008.
  38. John C. Platt. Probabilistic outputs for support vector ma- chines and comparisons to regularized likelihood meth- ods. In Advances in Large Margin Classifiers, pages 61-74. MIT Press, 1999.
  39. Joseph Romano and Michael Wolf. Control of generalized error rates in multiple testing. Annals of Statistics, 35(4), 2007.
  40. Yaniv Romano, Evan Patterson, and Emmanuel Candès. Conformalized quantile regression. In Advances in Neu- ral Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2019.
  41. Yaniv Romano, Matteo Sesia, and Emmanuel J. Candès. Classification with valid and adaptive coverage. In Advances in Neural Information Processing (NeurIPS), 2020.
  42. Mauricio Sadinle, Jing Lei, and Larry Wasserman. Least am- biguous set-valued classifiers with bounded error levels. Journal of American Statistical Association, 2019.
  43. Glenn Shafer and Vladimir Vovk. A tutorial on confor- mal prediction. Journal of Machine Learning Research (JMLR), 9:371-421, June 2008.
  44. Emil Spjøtvoll. On the Optimality of Some Multiple Com- parison Procedures. The Annals of Mathematical Statis- tics, 43(2):398 -411, 1972.
  45. Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. Introduction to the CoNLL-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. In Proceedings of the Sev- enth Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT- NAACL 2003, 2003.
  46. Juozas Vaicenavicius, David Widmann, Carl Andersson, Fredrik Lindsten, Jacob Roll, and Thomas Schön. Eval- uating model calibration in classification. In Kamalika Chaudhuri and Masashi Sugiyama, editors, International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AIS- TATS), 2019.
  47. Vladimir Vovk and Ivan Petej. Venn-abers predictors. In Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI), 2014.
  48. Vladimir Vovk, Glenn Shafer, and Ilia Nouretdinov. Self- calibrating probability forecasting. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2004.
  49. Vladimir Vovk, Alex Gammerman, and Glenn Shafer. Algo- rithmic Learning in a Random World. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005.
  50. Vladimir Vovk, Ivan Petej, and Valentina Fedorova. Large- scale probabilistic predictors with and without guarantees of validity. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2015.
  51. Vladimir Vovk, Valentina Fedorova, Ilia Nouretdinov, and Alexander Gammerman. Criteria of efficiency for con- formal prediction. In International Symposium on Con- formal and Probabilistic Prediction with Applications - Volume 9653, 2016.
  52. Kevin Yang, Kyle Swanson, Wengong Jin, Connor Coley, Philipp Eiden, Hua Gao, Angel Guzman-Perez, Tim- othy Hopper, Brian Kelley, Miriam Mathea, Andrew Palmer, Volker Settels, Tommi Jaakkola, Klavs Jensen, and Regina Barzilay. Analyzing learned molecular repre- sentations for property prediction. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 59(8):3370-3388, 2019.
  53. Manzil Zaheer, Satwik Kottur, Siamak Ravanbakhsh, Barn- abas Poczos, Russ R Salakhutdinov, and Alexander J Smola. Deep sets. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2017.
  54. Zexuan Zhong and Danqi Chen. A frustratingly easy ap- proach for entity and relation extraction. In Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT), 2021.

Cited by

See all 2

Metadata

Authors
Fisch, A., Schuster, T., Jaakkola, T., & Barzilay, R.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2202.07650
arXiv
2202.07650
References
1
Type
Preprint
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Conformal Prediction Sets with Limited False Positives. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2202.07650
The paper
Fisch, A., Schuster, T., Jaakkola, T., & Barzilay, R. (2022). Conformal Prediction Sets with Limited False Positives. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2202.07650

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.