Quantile Risk Control: A Flexible Framework for Bounding the Probability of High-Loss Predictions
Open accessAbstract
Rigorous guarantees about the performance of predictive algorithms are necessary in order to ensure their responsible use. Previous work has largely focused on bounding the expected loss of a predictor, but this is not sufficient in many risk-sensitive applications where the distribution of errors is important. In this work, we propose a flexible framework to produce a family of bounds on quantiles of the loss distribution incurred by a predictor. Our method takes advantage of the order statistics of the observed loss values rather than relying on the sample mean alone. We show that a quantile is an informative way of quantifying predictive performance, and that our framework applies to a variety of quantile-based metrics, each targeting important subsets of the data distribution. We analyze the theoretical properties of our proposed method and demonstrate its ability to rigorously control loss quantiles on several real-world datasets.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
[39] generalizes [18] to control the quantile of a monotone loss function conditional on (X_i,Y_i)_{i=1}^n with probability 1-δ over the calibration dataset for any user-specified tolerance parameter δ.
“[39] generalizes [18] to control the quantile of a monotone loss function conditional on ( X i , Y i ) n i =1 with probability 1 -δ over the calibration dataset for any user-specified tolerance parameter δ .”
From Conformal Risk Control (2022) · cites this paper as [39]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Angelopoulos, A. N., Bates, S., Fisch, A., Lei, L., & Schuster, T. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2208.02814 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
- Authors
- Snell, J. C., Zollo, T. P., Deng, Z., Pitassi, T., & Zemel, R.
- Affiliations
- Princeton University (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Columbia University (US)
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2022
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2212.13629
- OpenAlex
- W4313305467
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Canadian Institute for Advanced Research
- Government of Canada
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Risk and Portfolio Optimization
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
- Keywords
- order statistics
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