PreprintCited by 1Machine Learning and AlgorithmsAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningMachine Learning and Data Classification

Automatically Adaptive Conformal Risk Control

Open access
Blot, Vincent, Angelopoulos, Anastasios N, Jordan, Michael I, Brunel, Nicolas J-B·2024·arXiv

Abstract

Science and technology have a growing need for effective mechanisms that ensure reliable, controlled performance from black-box machine learning algorithms. These performance guarantees should ideally hold conditionally on the input-that is the performance guarantees should hold, at least approximately, no matter what the input. However, beyond stylized discrete groupings such as ethnicity and gender, the right notion of conditioning can be difficult to define. For example, in problems such as image segmentation, we want the uncertainty to reflect the intrinsic difficulty of the test sample, but this may be difficult to capture via a conditioning event. Building on the recent work of Gibbs et al. [2023], we propose a methodology for achieving approximate conditional control of statistical risks-the expected value of loss functions-by adapting to the difficulty of test samples. Our framework goes beyond traditional conditional risk control based on user-provided conditioning events to the algorithmic, data-driven determination of appropriate function classes for conditioning. We apply this framework to various regression and segmentation tasks, enabling finer-grained control over model performance and demonstrating that by continuously monitoring and adjusting these parameters, we can achieve superior precision compared to conventional risk-control methods.

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.2406.17819

Cites

Statistics

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?

  • Other conformal approaches reduce false negatives by lowering score thresholds or by morphological dilation of the predicted mask.

    “Other conformal approaches reduce false negatives by lowering score thresholds [2, 13, 5] or by morphological dilation of the predicted mask [14].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Salim I Amoukou and Nicolas JB Brunel. Adaptive conformal prediction by reweighting nonconformity score. arXiv:2303.12695, 2023. · arXiv
  2. Anastasios N. Angelopoulos, Emmanuel Candes, and Ryan Tibshirani. Conformal PID control for time series prediction. In Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023.
  3. Anastasios Nikolas Angelopoulos, Stephen Bates, Adam Fisch, Lihua Lei, and Tal Schuster. Conformal risk control. In 12th International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024.
  4. Rina Foygel Barber, Emmanuel J Candes, Aaditya Ramdas, and Ryan J Tibshirani. The limits of distribution-free conditional predictive inference. Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA, 10(2):455-482, 2021.
  5. Osbert Bastani, Varun Gupta, Christopher Jung, Georgy Noarov, Ramya Ramalingam, and Aaron Roth. Practical adversarial multivalid conformal prediction. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:29362-29373, 2022.
  6. J. Bernal, N. Tajkbaksh, F.J. Sánchez, B. Matuszewski, H. Chen, L. Yu, Q. Angermann, O. Romain, B. Rustad, I. Balasingham, K. Pogorelov, S. Choi, Q. Debard, L. Maier-Hein, S. Speidel, D. Stoyanov, P. Brandao, H. Cordova, C. Sánchez-Montes, S.R. Gurudu, G. Fernández-Esparrach, X. Dray, J. Liang, and A. Histace. Comparative validation of polyp detection methods in video colonoscopy: Results from the MICCAI 2015 endoscopic vision challenge. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 99, 2017.
  7. Leo Breiman. Random forests. Machine Learning, 45(1):5-32, 2001.
  8. Deng-Ping Fan, Ge-Peng Ji, Tao Zhou, Geng Chen, Huazhu Fu, Jianbing Shen, and Ling Shao. Pranet: Parallel reverse attention network for polyp segmentation. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 263-273, 2020.
  9. Isaac Gibbs, John J Cherian, and Emmanuel J Candès. Conformal prediction with conditional guarantees. arXiv:2305.12616, 2023. · arXiv
  10. Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 770-778, 2016.
  11. Debesh Jha, Pia H Smedsrud, Michael A Riegler, Pål Halvorsen, Thomas De Lange, Dag Johansen, and Håvard D Johansen. Kvasir-SEG: A segmented polyp dataset. In 26th International Conference on Multimedia Modeling, pages 451-462, 2020.
  12. Chi Jin, Rong Ge, Praneeth Netrapalli, Sham M Kakade, and Michael I Jordan. How to escape saddle points efficiently. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1724-1732. PMLR, 2017.
  13. Christopher Jung, Changhwa Lee, Mallesh Pai, Aaron Roth, and Rakesh Vohra. Moment multicalibration for uncertainty estimation. In Conference on Learning Theory, pages 2634-2678, 2021.
  14. Christopher Jung, Georgy Noarov, Ramya Ramalingam, and Aaron Roth. Batch multivalid conformal prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15145, 2022. · arXiv
  15. Michael P Kim, Amirata Ghorbani, and James Zou. Multiaccuracy: Black-box post-processing for fairness in classification. In AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pages 247-254, 2019.
  16. Roger Koenker and Gilbert Bassett Jr. Regression quantiles. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 46(1): 33-50, 1978.
  17. Yaniv Romano, Evan Patterson, and Emmanuel J. Candès. Conformalized quantile regression. In Neural Information Processing Systems, 2019.
  18. Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmen- tation. In Nassir Navab, Joachim Hornegger, William M. Wells, and Alejandro F. Frangi, editors, Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 234-241, 2015.
  19. Ravid Shwartz-Ziv and Amitai Armon. Tabular data: Deep learning is not all you need. Information Fusion, 81:84-90, 2022. ISSN 1566-2535. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2021.11.011. URL https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1566253521002360. · DOI · Paper page
  20. J. Silva, A. Histace, O. Romain, X. Dray, and B. Granado. Toward embedded detection of polyps in wce images for early diagnosis of colorectal cancer. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, 9(2): 283-293, 2014.
  21. N. Tajbakhsh, S. R. Gurudu, and J. Liang. Automated polyp detection in colonoscopy videos using shape and context information. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 35(2):630-644, 2015.
  22. D. Vazquez, J. Bernal, F. J. Sánchez, G. Fernández-Esparrach, A. M. Lopez, A. Romero, M. Drozdzal, and A. Courville. A benchmark for endoluminal scene segmentation of colonoscopy images. Journal of Healthcare Engineering, pages 1-9, 2017.
  23. Vladimir Vovk. Conditional validity of inductive conformal predictors. In Asian Conference on Machine Learning, volume 25, pages 475-490, 2012.
  24. Vladimir Vovk, Alex Gammerman, and Glenn Shafer. Algorithmic Learning in a Random World. Springer, 2005.
  25. Svante Wold, Kim Esbensen, and Paul Geladi. Principal component analysis. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 2(1):37-52, 1987. Multivariate Statistical Workshop for Geologists and Geochemists.
  26. Lujing Zhang, Aaron Roth, and Linjun Zhang. Fair risk control: A generalized framework for calibrating multi-group fairness risks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.02225, 2024. · arXiv

Cited by

Authors
Blot, V., Angelopoulos, A. N., Jordan, M. I., & Brunel, N. J.-B.
Affiliations
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies du numérique (FR)
  • École Nationale Supérieure d’Informatique pour l’Industrie et l’Entreprise (FR)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W6910520363
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
Keywords
conformal prediction, uncertainty quantification, image segmentation, regression analysis, black-box machine learning

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