Optimized Certainty Equivalent Risk-Controlling Prediction Sets
Open accessAbstract
In safety-critical applications such as medical image segmentation, prediction systems must provide reliability guarantees that extend beyond conventional expected loss control. While risk-controlling prediction sets (RCPS) offer probabilistic guarantees on the expected risk, they fail to capture tail behavior and worst-case scenarios that are crucial in high-stakes settings. This paper introduces optimized certainty equivalent RCPS (OCE-RCPS), a novel framework that provides high-probability guarantees on general optimized certainty equivalent (OCE) risk measures, including conditional value-at-risk (CVaR) and entropic risk. OCE-RCPS leverages upper confidence bounds to identify prediction set parameters that satisfy user-specified risk tolerance levels with provable reliability. We establish theoretical guarantees showing that OCE-RCPS satisfies the desired probabilistic constraint for loss functions such as miscoverage and false negative rate. Experiments on image segmentation demonstrate that OCE-RCPS consistently meets target satisfaction rates across various risk measures and reliability configurations, while OCE-CRC fails to provide probabilistic guarantees.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper introduces OCE-RCPS, a conformal prediction framework that provides high-probability guarantees on general optimized certainty equivalent (OCE) risk measures such as CVaR and entropic risk. Experiments on polyp segmentation show OCE-RCPS meets target satisfaction rates where OCE-CRC fails, at the cost of larger prediction sets.
Key findings
- OCE-RCPS provides high-probability control of OCE risk with respect to calibration data, whereas OCE-CRC only controls OCE risk on average over calibration datasets.
- In polyp segmentation with target risk tolerance α = 0.2 and target satisfaction 1 − δ = 0.8, OCE-CRC achieved average satisfaction rates of only 0.65 for CVaR (β = 0.9) and 0.58 for entropic risk (β = 3), while OCE-RCPS achieved 0.83 and 0.93, respectively.
- To meet these guarantees, OCE-RCPS increased the median relative prediction set size from 7.98 to 8.45 for CVaR, and from 1.74 to 2.74 for entropic risk.
- Across target satisfaction rates 1 − δ ∈ {0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9} with α = 0.4 and CVaR β = 0.9, OCE-RCPS consistently met the target, while OCE-CRC remained around 0.6.
Methods
- OCE-RCPS constructs a Waudby-Smith and Ramdas (WSR) upper confidence bound on the OCE risk term R(λ, t), then selects the smallest λ such that the UCB does not exceed α for all λ′ ≥ λ; the parameter t is optimized on a held-out optimization dataset D_opt. Theorem 1 states the reliability requirement holds under the monotonicity condition.
- Data: five open-source polyp segmentation benchmarks—Kvasir, Hyper-Kvasir, CVC-ClinicDB, CVC-ColonDB, and ETIS-Larib—aggregated to 1781 segmented polyp examples, using a pre-trained PraNet as the base segmentation model and the false negative rate (FNR) loss.
- Protocol: each trial randomly selects a reference dataset D of size 1000 and test dataset D_te of size 781; D is split into D_opt of size 200 and D_cal of size 800. Results are averaged over 1000 independent trials, with metrics including average satisfaction rate, relative prediction set size, and kernel density estimates of risk and set-size distributions.
Limitations
- The paper states future directions include extending OCE-RCPS to distribution-shift settings and applying it to other safety-critical domains such as autonomous driving; no explicit limitations section is provided.
- Evident from the text: empirical validation is limited to polyp/tumor segmentation with PraNet and FNR loss, and to specific CVaR and entropic risk configurations; no distribution-shift or other-domain experiments are reported.
- Evident from the text: OCE-RCPS achieves reliability by inflating prediction set size, as shown by the reported increases in median relative prediction set size.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
9 of 10 cited sources checked · 3 supported · 1 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation§ A. Motivation · p. 1
OCE-CRC guarantees that the OCE risk remains below a target level α only on average over the possible held-out datasets used for calibration.
“The recently introduced OCE conformal risk control (OCE-CRC) [1] guarantees that the OCE risk remains below a target level α . However, this guarantee holds only on average over the possible held-out datasets used for calibration.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [1] [1] C. Yeh, N. Christianson, A. Wierman, and Y. Yue, 'Conformal risk training: End-to-end optimization of conformal risk control,' arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.08748 , 2025. - source
- Interpretationreasoning§ A. Motivation · p. 1
OCE-CRC can fail to produce prediction sets that satisfy the risk constraint for a high fraction of calibration datasets.
“this implies that OCE-CRC can fail to produce prediction sets that satisfy the risk constraint for a high fraction of calibration datasets, leading to unreliable decisions in practice.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [1] [1] C. Yeh, N. Christianson, A. Wierman, and Y. Yue, 'Conformal risk training: End-to-end optimization of conformal risk control,' arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.08748 , 2025. - source
Section 2 (p. 3) describes CRC as controlling marginal loss, and the Conclusion (p. 10) describes conformal OCE risk control as providing a risk guarantee under its assumptions. Neither passage, nor the passages found by searching for conditional risk and calibration-dataset failures, says that the risk constraint fails for a high fraction of calibration datasets. A marginal guarantee alone does not establish that frequency. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation§ A. Motivation · p. 1
Risk-controlling prediction sets (RCPS) offer probabilistic guarantees on the expected risk.
“risk-controlling prediction sets (RCPS) [8] offer a principled approach to control the expected loss of the prediction set with high probability.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [8] [8] S. Bates, A. Angelopoulos, L. Lei, J. Malik, and M. Jordan, 'Distribution-free, risk-controlling prediction sets,' Journal of the ACM (JACM) , vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 1-34, 2021. - source
- Premisecitation§ A. RCPS · p. 4
The WSR UCB on the risk R(λ,t) satisfies the inequality R(λ,t) ≤ ˆR+(λ,t,δ) with probability at least 1-δ over the calibration data.
“The WSR UCB in (12) satisfies the inequality”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [8] [8] S. Bates, A. Angelopoulos, L. Lei, J. Malik, and M. Jordan, 'Distribution-free, risk-controlling prediction sets,' Journal of the ACM (JACM) , vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 1-34, 2021. - source
Proposition 5 (§3.1.3) states that the WSR bound is a (1−δ) upper confidence bound for R(λ), and its proof in Appendix A gives P(R(λ)>R⁺WSR(λ))≤δ. The paper establishes this for a fixed λ and a loss bounded by one; it does not establish the stated bound for R(λ,t) or the citing paper’s UCB in equation (12). (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation§ A. Motivation · p. 1
Traditional point predictions, even when accompanied by confidence scores from probabilistic models, often fail to quantify uncertainty reliably due to miscalibration.
“Traditional point predictions, even when accompanied by confidence scores from probabilistic models, often fail to quantify uncertainty reliably due to miscalibration [3], [4].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked- cites [3] [3] C. Guo, G. Pleiss, Y. Sun, and K. Q. Weinberger, 'On calibration of modern neural networks,' in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2017, pp. 1321-1330. - source
The Introduction (p. 2) reports that, on several computer-vision and NLP tasks, neural networks produce confidence scores that do not represent true probabilities. This supports the concern about miscalibrated confidence, but the paper does not establish the broader claim about traditional point predictions or probabilistic models generally. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [4] [4] J. Huang, S. Park, and O. Simeone, 'Calibrating Bayesian learning via regularization, confidence minimization, and selective inference,' IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 73, pp. 4492-4505, 2025. - source
- Premisecitation§ A. Motivation · p. 1
Miscalibration can lead to catastrophic failures, such as missed cancer diagnoses in medical imaging or false negatives in anomaly detection systems.
“This limitation can lead to catastrophic failures, such as missed cancer diagnoses in medical imaging [5] or false negatives in anomaly detection systems [6].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked- cites [5] [5] M. Abdar et al. , 'A review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges,' Information fusion , vol. 76, pp. 243-297, 2021. - source
The citation [5] is attached to the medical-imaging example, not the anomaly-detection example cited to [6]. Section 8.2 (p. 27) says erroneous medical predictions can have substantial ethical costs and that unreliable models limit automated disease monitoring. It does not specifically say that miscalibration leads to missed cancer diagnoses. (LLM, conf=0.79)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [6] [6] M. Zhu, M. Zecchin, S. Park, C. Guo, C. Feng, P. Popovski, and O. Simeone, 'Conformal distributed remote inference in sensor networks under reliability and communication constraints,' IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , 2025. - source
The Design Problem section defines false negatives as relevant labels incorrectly classified as irrelevant and discusses missed target pixels in segmentation. It does not address anomaly detection systems or say that miscalibration causes catastrophic failures. In the citing sentence, the citation to this paper is attached to the anomaly-detection example, not the medical-imaging example; page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Findingown data§ Optimized Certainty Equivalent Risk-Controlling Prediction Sets · p. 1
In experiments on image segmentation, OCE-RCPS consistently meets target satisfaction rates across various risk measures and reliability configurations.
“Experiments on image segmentation demonstrate that OCE-RCPS consistently meets target satisfaction rates across various risk measures and reliability configurations”
- Also stated in: § B. Results · p. 5 · plain
“OCE-RCPS consistently meets the target reliability requirement as in (5)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § B. Results · p. 5 · plain
- Findingown data§ Optimized Certainty Equivalent Risk-Controlling Prediction Sets · p. 1
OCE-CRC fails to provide probabilistic guarantees.
“while OCE-CRC fails to provide probabilistic guarantees.”
- Also stated in: § B. Results · p. 5 · boosted
“This confirms that OCE-CRC lacks a mechanism to control the probabilistic requirement on the OCE risk as in (5).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § B. Results · p. 5 · boosted
- Findingreasoning§ A. RCPS · p. 4
For any fixed value of parameter t, the UCB ˆR+(λ,t,δ) serves as a valid UCB on the OCE risk R_OCE(λ).
“Lemma 1: For any fixed value of parameter t ∈ R , the UCB ˆ R + ( λ, t, δ ) satisfies an inequality”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ Optimized Certainty Equivalent Risk-Controlling Prediction Sets · p. 1
OCE-RCPS provides high-probability guarantees on general optimized certainty equivalent (OCE) risk measures, including conditional value-at-risk (CVaR) and entropic risk.
“This paper introduces optimized certainty equivalent RCPS (OCE-RCPS), a novel framework that provides high-probability guarantees on general optimized certainty equivalent (OCE) risk measures, including conditional value-at-risk (CVaR) and entropic risk.”
- Also stated in: § B. Main Contributions · p. 1 · plain
“we introduce OCE-RCPS, which extends RCPS to provide high-probability guarantees on general OCE risk measures”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § B. Main Contributions · p. 1 · plain
- Interpretationreasoning§ Optimized Certainty Equivalent Risk-Controlling Prediction Sets · p. 1
OCE-RCPS satisfies the desired probabilistic constraint for loss functions such as miscoverage and false negative rate.
“We establish theoretical guarantees showing that OCE-RCPS satisfies the desired probabilistic constraint for loss functions such as miscoverage and false negative rate.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationnone given§ Optimized Certainty Equivalent Risk-Controlling Prediction Sets · p. 1
OCE-RCPS leverages upper confidence bounds to identify prediction set parameters that satisfy user-specified risk tolerance levels with provable reliability.
“OCE-RCPS leverages upper confidence bounds to identify prediction set parameters that satisfy user-specified risk tolerance levels with provable reliability.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ A. RCPS · p. 4
OCE-RCPS extends RCPS to offer control over any OCE risk.
“OCE-RCPS extends RCPS to offer control over any OCE risk.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ C. Theoretical Guarantees · p. 4
OCE-RCPS satisfies the reliability requirement R_OCE(ˆλ) ≤ α with probability at least 1-δ.
“Theorem 1: Let ˆ λ be selected as in (16), with parameter t ∗ in (8). Under the monotonicity condition (2), OCE-RCPS satisfies the requirement”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The loss function satisfies the monotonicity property so that larger prediction sets correspond to lower losses.
- May combine two claims. 7
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 2
May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ A. Motivation · p. 1RCPS focuses exclusively on the average risk, which fails to capture critical aspects of risk-sensitive decision-making, particularly the tail behavior of the loss distribution.
“However, RCPS focuses exclusively on the average risk, which fails to capture critical aspects of risk-sensitive decisionmaking, particularly the tail behavior of the loss distribution.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [8] [8] S. Bates, A. Angelopoulos, L. Lei, J. Malik, and M. Jordan, 'Distribution-free, risk-controlling prediction sets,' Journal of the ACM (JACM) , vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 1-34, 2021. - source
Section 6, “Other Risk Functions” (page unavailable), says the paper initially defines risk as mean loss but then considers risk functionals other than the mean. That directly contradicts the claim that RCPS focuses exclusively on average risk. The passage does not itself establish a specific guarantee for the tail of the loss distribution. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
May combine two claims.
Findingown data§ B. Results · p. 4OCE-CRC achieves an average satisfaction rate of 0.65 for CVaR and 0.58 for entropic risk, below the target of 0.8.
“resulting in an average satisfaction rate of only 0 . 65 and of only 0 . 58 , respectively, well below the target of 1 -δ = 0 . 8 .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ B. Results · p. 4OCE-RCPS achieves an average satisfaction rate of 0.83 for CVaR and 0.93 for entropic risk, meeting the target reliability requirement.
“In contrast, OCE-RCPS achieves an average satisfaction rate of 0 . 83 and of 0 . 93 for the CVaR and entropic risk, respectively, meeting the target reliability requirement as in (5).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ B. Results · p. 5As the target satisfaction rate 1-δ increases from 0.6 to 0.9, OCE-RCPS consistently meets the target reliability requirement, while the average satisfaction rate of OCE-CRC remains around 0.6.
“as the target satisfaction rate 1 -δ increases from 0 . 6 to 0 . 9 , OCE-RCPS consistently meets the target reliability requirement as in (5), while the average satisfaction rate of OCE-CRC remains around 0 . 6 , irrespective of the choice of the target of 1 -δ .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data§ B. Results · p. 4OCE-RCPS increases the median relative prediction set size from 7.98 to 8.45 for CVaR, and from 1.74 to 2.74 for entropic risk.
“OCE-RCPS increases the median of relative prediction set size from 7 . 98 to 8 . 45 for the CVaR, and from 1 . 74 to 2 . 74 for the entropic risk, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone given§ II. PROBLEM DEFINITION · p. 2The prediction set Γλ(x) constructed by thresholding scores satisfies monotonicity with respect to the parameter λ.
“Note that the prediction set (1) satisfies the monotonicity condition”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown data§ B. Results · p. 5OCE-RCPS provides a controllable reliability knob, adaptively inflating the prediction set size to meet the prescribed target.
“OCE-RCPS provides a controllable reliability knob, adaptively inflating the prediction set size to meet the prescribed target.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ II. PROBLEM DEFINITION · p. 3The general class of OCE risks includes standard measures such as the expected loss, the entropic risk, and the CVaR.
“In this work, we consider the general class of OCE risks, which include standard measures such as the expected loss, the entropic risk, and the CVaR (see Table II).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [9] [9] A. Ben-Tal and M. Teboulle, 'An old-new concept of convex risk measures: The optimized certainty equivalent,' Mathematical Finance , vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 449-476, 2007. - source
May combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoning§ III. OCE CONFORMAL RISK CONTROL · p. 3The use of a separate dataset D_opt ensures that the value t* is independent of the calibration data D_cal, which is necessary to preserve the validity of the OCE risk guarantee.
“The use of a separate dataset D opt ensures that the value t ∗ in (8) is independent of the calibration data D cal , which is necessary to preserve the validity of the OCE risk guarantee in (6).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
The authors state this as an assumption.
The loss function satisfies the monotonicity property so that larger prediction sets correspond to lower losses.
“We require that the loss function satisfies the monotonicity property”
“so that larger prediction sets correspond to lower losses.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Calibration and test data are i.i.d. samples from the joint distribution p(x,y).
“Given a calibration dataset D cal = { ( x i , y i ) } |D cal | i =1 with i.i.d. samples ( x, y ) ∼ p ( x, y )”
The paper relies on this without support.
Medical practitioners often require stronger guarantees that account for worst-case test scenarios.
“as medical practitioners often require stronger guarantees that account for worst-case test scenarios.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The loss function is non-negative and bounded.
“let ℓ ( y, Γ λ ( x )) denote a non-negative bounded loss function that measures the discrepancy between the prediction set Γ λ ( x ) and output y ∈ Y .”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
RCPS is assigned conflicting reference numbers
MinorThe paper identifies RCPS as reference [8] elsewhere, but cites [1] when describing the same method's objective.
“When the OCE risk coincides with the average risk, the requirement (5) coincides with the objective of RCPS [1].”
“RCPS [8] controls the expected loss R avg ( λ ) = E [ ℓ ( y, Γ λ ( x ))] , which corresponds to a special case of the OCE risk (see Table II).”
Cites
On calibration of modern neural networks
Guo, C., Pleiss, G., Sun, Y., & Weinberger, K. Q. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.04599 · Cited by 3,435 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Traditional point predictions, even when accompanied by confidence scores from probabilistic models, often fail to quantify uncertainty reliably due to miscalibration [3], [4].”
A review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges
Abdar, M., Pourpanah, F., Hussain, S., Rezazadegan, D., Liu, L., Ghavamzadeh, M., Fieguth, P., Cao, X., Khosravi, A., Acharya, U. R., et al. (2021) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2021.05.008 · Cited by 2,720 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This limitation can lead to catastrophic failures, such as missed cancer diagnoses in medical imaging [5] or false negatives in anomaly detection systems [6].”
PraNet: Parallel Reverse Attention Network for Polyp Segmentation
Fan, D.-P., Ji, G.-P., Zhou, T., Chen, G., Fu, H., Shen, J.-B., & Shao, L. (2020) · International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-59725-2_26 · Cited by 2,003 · cited 1× · see citing works
“We adopt a pre-trained PraNet [14] as the base segmentation model p ( y | x ) .”
A tutorial on conformal prediction
Shafer, G., & Vovk, V. (2007) · Journal of machine learning research · doi:10.5555/1390681.1390693 · Cited by 1,896 · cited 2×
“To address these challenges, recent advances in conformal prediction (CP) have introduced prediction sets that provide distribution-free coverage guarantees [7].”
Toward embedded detection of polyps in WCE images for early diagnosis of colorectal cancer
Silva, J. C., Histace, A., Romain, O., Dray, X., & Granado, B. (2013) · International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery · doi:10.1007/s11548-013-0926-3 · Cited by 1,318 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Following [8], we aggregate data from five open-source polyp segmentation benchmarks: Kvasir [2], Hyper-Kvasir [11], CVC-ClinicDB and CVC-ColonDB [12], and ETIS-Larib [13], yielding a combined dataset with 1781 examples of segmented polyps.”
Towards automatic polyp detection with a polyp appearance model
Bernal, J., Sánchez, F. J., & Vilariño, F. (2012) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2012.03.002 · Cited by 709 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Following [8], we aggregate data from five open-source polyp segmentation benchmarks: Kvasir [2], Hyper-Kvasir [11], CVC-ClinicDB and CVC-ColonDB [12], and ETIS-Larib [13], yielding a combined dataset with 1781 examples of segmented polyps.”
Pogorelov, K., Randel, K. R., Griwodz, C., Eskeland, S. L., de Lange, T., Johansen, D., Spampinato, C., Dang‐Nguyen, D., Lux, M., Schmidt, P. T., et al. (2017) · ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (MMSys) · doi:10.1145/3083187.3083212 · Cited by 707 · cited 2× · see citing works
“The left panel of the figure shows representative results for the CVaR of the false negative rate (FNR) loss in a segmentation task [2], with white, red, and green pixels denoting correct predictions, false negatives, and false positives, respectively.”
A tutorial on conformal prediction
Shafer, G., & Vovk, V. (2007) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.0706.3188 · Cited by 655 · cited 2× · see citing works
“To address these challenges, recent advances in conformal prediction (CP) have introduced prediction sets that provide distribution-free coverage guarantees [7].”
HyperKvasir, a comprehensive multi-class image and video dataset for gastrointestinal endoscopy
Borgli, H., Thambawita, V. L., Smedsrud, P. H., Hicks, S. A., Jha, D., Eskeland, S. L., Randel, K. R., Pogorelov, K., Lux, M., Dang‐Nguyen, D., et al. (2020) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-020-00622-y · Cited by 588 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Following [8], we aggregate data from five open-source polyp segmentation benchmarks: Kvasir [2], Hyper-Kvasir [11], CVC-ClinicDB and CVC-ColonDB [12], and ETIS-Larib [13], yielding a combined dataset with 1781 examples of segmented polyps.”
AN OLD‐NEW CONCEPT OF CONVEX RISK MEASURES: THE OPTIMIZED CERTAINTY EQUIVALENT
Ben‐Tal, A., & Teboulle, M. (2007) · Mathematical Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9965.2007.00311.x · Cited by 353 · cited 2× · see citing works
“This motivates the need for optimized certainty equivalent (OCE) risk measures [9], which provide a flexible framework for controlling risk aversion through measures such as conditional value-at-risk (CVaR) and entropic risk.”
Distribution-free, Risk-controlling Prediction Sets
Bates, S., Angelopoulos, A., Lei, L., Malik, J., & Jordan, M. (2021) · Journal of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3478535 · Cited by 144 · cited 8× · see citing works
“Other examples include the FNR in multi-label classification and image segmentation [8].”
InfluentialAngelopoulos, A. N., Bates, S., Fisch, A., Lei, L., & Schuster, T. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2208.02814 · Cited by 37 · cited 1× · see citing works
“E XPERIMENTS In this section, to validate the proposed OCE-RCPS scheme, we report empirical results for the tumor segmentation task [10].”
Zhu, M., Zecchin, M., Park, S., Guo, C., Feng, C., Popovski, P., & Simeone, O. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/tsp.2025.3549222 · Cited by 6 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This limitation can lead to catastrophic failures, such as missed cancer diagnoses in medical imaging [5] or false negatives in anomaly detection systems [6].”
Self-citationCalibrating Bayesian Learning via Regularization, Confidence Minimization, and Selective Inference
Huang, J., Park, S., & Simeone, O. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/tsp.2025.3629292 · Cited by 2 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Traditional point predictions, even when accompanied by confidence scores from probabilistic models, often fail to quantify uncertainty reliably due to miscalibration [3], [4].”
Self-citationConformal Risk Training: End-to-End Optimization of Conformal Risk Control
Yeh, C., Christianson, N., Wierman, A., & Yue, Y. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.08748 · cited 6×
“2, we report the performance of OCE-CRC [1] and of the proposed OCE-RCPS in terms of risk and of relative prediction set size, for the CVaR with parameter β = 0 .”
Influential
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Conformal Risk-Averse Decision Making with Optimized Certainty Equivalent Risk Control
Farzaneh, A., & Simeone, O. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.28179
“Our approach is inspired by [13], which tackled the problem of calibrating a prediction set to control the OCE risk of a scalar loss defined on the covered set via a form of LTT [10].”
Self-citation
- Authors
- Huang, J., Farzaneh, A., & Simeone, O.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2602.13660
- OpenAlex
- W7129378454
- Semantic Scholar
- a7f63952b3b27902767b436f1878c2ca5bf12b35
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 14
- Type
- posted content
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Risk and Portfolio Optimization
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Keywords
- conditional value at risk, upper confidence bound, probabilistic guarantees, medical image segmentation, false negative rate
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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-21.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-21.
Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.
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
