Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Synthetic-Powered Predictive Inference

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Synthetic-powered predictive inference (SPI) proves that a large pool of synthetic scores can be integrated into conformal prediction to yield sharper prediction sets while preserving finite-sample coverage guarantees that hold no matter…

desk verdict A genuinely new transporter-based conformal method with strong experiments, whose headline worst-case bound (Theorem 3.5) needs a continuity assumption on the real scores or randomized tie-breaking before it is true as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13432 v2 pith:WHPSWJRB submitted 2025-05-19 cs.LG stat.ML

Meshi Bashari , Roy Maor Lotan , Yonghoon Lee , Edgar Dobriban , Yaniv Romano This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGstat.ML
keywords conformalpredictionsyntheticdatadistribution-freecoveragesampleefficiencyscoretransporterempiricalquantilemappingsetslabel-conditional
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Standard conformal prediction gives finite-sample coverage but, with a small calibration set, often returns trivial prediction sets that contain every label. This paper asks whether a large pool of synthetic data can make those sets informative again while preserving the same kind of guarantee, and it answers yes. The proposed procedure, synthetic-powered predictive inference (SPI), transports each real nonconformity score into the synthetic score space through an empirical quantile mapping, then calibrates against the synthetic scores. The central theorem supplies worst-case coverage bounds that hold for any synthetic distribution, even one that depends on the real calibration data, and a second theorem shows that when the real and synthetic score distributions are close the achieved coverage is close to the target. With as few as 15 real calibration points on ImageNet and on a tabular regression task, SPI produces smaller prediction sets than split conformal prediction while staying inside the guaranteed bounds.

What carries the argument

The score transporter $T$ is the load-bearing object. For a candidate score $\eta$, its rank $r_\eta$ among the $m$ real calibration scores selects a window $[L_m(r_\eta),U_m(r_\eta)]$ of synthetic scores; the window endpoints are the $R^-_{r_\eta}$-th and $R^+_{r_\eta}$-th order statistics of the synthetic scores, with the ranks drawn from the negative-hypergeometric distribution of the $r$-th real order statistic in a pooled sample of size $N+m+1$. The transporter returns the largest synthetic score inside the window that does not exceed $\eta$, clamping to the lower or upper endpoint when $\eta$ falls outside. This sandwiching turns the event $\{T(S_{m+1})\le \tilde Q_{1-\alpha}\}$ into a pair of rank events, so the exchangeable uniform rank of the test score directly yields the coverage bounds in Theorem 3.5.

What would settle it

Simulate $m$ real calibration scores from the standard normal, draw the test score from a normal shifted far to the right, choose any synthetic scores, build the SPI set from (9) with $\alpha=0.1$ and $\beta=0.4$, and repeat many times; if the empirical coverage falls below the Theorem 3.5 lower bound, the exchangeability assumption is shown to be necessary for the stated guarantee.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the SPI prediction set in (9), defined by testing whether the transported score $T(s(X_{m+1},y))$ falls below the empirical quantile $\tilde Q_{1-\alpha}$ of the synthetic scores, has finite-sample coverage that is controlled by quantities computed entirely from the data. Theorem 3.5 states that, if the real calibration set is exchangeable with the test point and the synthetic score distribution $Q$ is continuous, then coverage is at least the fraction of indices $j\in[m+1]$ with $R_j^+\le\lceil(1-\alpha)(N+1)\rceil$ and at most the analogous fraction with $R_j^-\le\lceil(1-\alpha)(N+1)\rceil$; these bounds hold no matter what $Q$ is, and they do not require $Q$ to be independent of the real calibration set. Theorem 3.3 refines this: when the real and synthetic score distributions $P$ and $Q$ are close in total variation, the coverage is $1-\alpha$ up to an order-statistic distance term $\varepsilon_{P,Q}^{m+1}$, the window slack $\beta$, and the standard $1/(N+1)$ split-conformal slack. In particular, when $P=Q$, SPI's upper bound beats split conformal's upper bound whenever $\beta+1/(N+1)\le 1/(m+1)$.

Load-bearing premise

The real calibration data and the new test point must be drawn so that any ordering of their scores is equally likely; if the test point comes from a shifted or drifting distribution, the test score's rank among the real scores is no longer uniform and the coverage bound no longer follows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With $m=15$ real calibration points and $\alpha=0.05$, split conformal is forced to output the full label set because $m+1<1/\alpha$; SPI instead thresholds against a quantile informed by $N$ synthetic scores and can output small sets.
  • The user can steer the worst-case lower bound to any desired level by choosing $\beta$ with the paper's Algorithm 4, yielding a finite-sample guardrail that holds for arbitrary synthetic data.
  • When the real and synthetic score distributions coincide, the coverage upper bound becomes $1-\alpha+\beta+1/(N+1)$, and SPI is provably less conservative than split conformal whenever $\beta+1/(N+1)<1/(m+1)$.
  • Because Theorem 3.5 tolerates synthetic scores that depend on the real calibration data, SPI remains valid when synthetic scores are produced by a data-dependent adjustment function or when a fixed-size subset of synthetic data is selected by nearest-neighbor screening.
  • The fast threshold form (10) keeps the per-test computation at the level of sorting two lists, so the efficiency gain does not come at the cost of runtime.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An extension the authors leave implicit: because the only distributional assumption is continuity of $Q$ and exchangeability of real scores, the same transported-quantile argument should carry over to any score function that is calibrated by ranks, including conformal p-values and outlier-detection p-values, not just set-valued prediction.
  • The window construction in (6) is driven by order statistics of the pooled sample; a natural testable variant would replace the negative-hypergeometric windows with finite-sample distribution-free tolerance intervals derived from the same ranks, which would change the $\beta$ slack without changing the worst-case bounds.
  • The experimental setup suggests a practical recipe outside the paper's explicit claims: choose the synthetic score function to minimize total variation between order-statistic distributions, because the coverage gap in Theorem 3.3 is governed by that distance, not by raw distributional similarity of images or features.
  • Since the worst-case bounds depend only on $m,N,\alpha,\beta$, one could precompute them as a dashboard during synthetic-data generation, letting users veto a generative model before any real labels are spent; this decision-support use is implied but not developed in the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Synthetic-Powered Predictive Inference (SPI), a conformal-prediction method that leverages a large pool of synthetic data to improve the sample efficiency of prediction sets when real calibration data are scarce. The key innovation is a score transporter that maps real nonconformity scores into the synthetic score space via order-statistic windows. The paper states two types of guarantees: Theorem 3.3 bounds coverage in terms of the total-variation distance between real and synthetic score distributions, and Theorem 3.5 provides worst-case coverage bounds depending only on sample sizes and user parameters, with no condition on the synthetic distribution. The method is evaluated on ImageNet classification (with Stable Diffusion and FLUX generated images) and MEPS regression, showing tighter sets than standard conformal prediction while maintaining coverage within the stated bounds.

Significance. If the theoretical guarantees hold as stated, SPI is a practically valuable contribution: it offers a principled way to use abundant synthetic data in conformal inference, with finite-sample bounds and user-controllable worst-case behavior. The paper includes full proofs in Appendix G, a simplified fast algorithm, and reproducible experimental code. The worst-case guarantee in Theorem 3.5 is especially attractive because it is robust to arbitrary misspecification of the synthetic distribution. The experimental demonstration of nontrivial prediction sets with as few as 15 real calibration points, in both classification and regression, is compelling.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theorem 3.5 and Appendix G.3] Theorem 3.5 is stated under exchangeability of the real calibration data and continuity of the synthetic score distribution Q, but the proof's uniform-rank step requires the real score distribution P to be continuous (or explicit random tie-breaking). The proof asserts that r_{m+1} is uniform on [m+1] by exchangeability; this is false when P has atoms. Concretely, with m=1, N=1, beta=0.9, alpha=0.5, real scores i.i.d. Bernoulli(1/2), and a single synthetic score Uniform[0,1], the theorem's bounds are both 1/2, but the transporter maps rank 1 to the single synthetic score (always accepted) and rank 2 to +infinity (always rejected), giving coverage P(rank=1)=3/4, violating the upper bound 1/2. This is not merely cosmetic: the paper's headline claim of a distribution-free worst-case guarantee fails for discrete real scores. The fix is to add to the theorem the assumption that P is continuous, or to define the rank with randomized tie-breaking (as hinted in Remark 3.4), and to make the same adjustment in Theorem 3.3, whose proof also relies on the uniformity of r_{m+1}.
  2. [Theorem 3.3 and Appendix G.2] The same omitted condition appears in Theorem 3.3: the theorem assumes Q is continuous but not that P is continuous. The proof conditions on r_{m+1} and uses r_{m+1} ~ Uniform([m+1]) by exchangeability. For discrete P, the rank distribution is not uniform, so the stated coverage bounds do not follow. The statement and proof need either an explicit continuity assumption on P or a randomized tie-breaking mechanism for ranks. Without this, the theorem is not valid for the common case of discrete scores (e.g., classification scores after APS jittering aside).
  3. [Algorithm 1 and Eq. (10)] In Eq. (10) and Algorithm 1, the fast prediction set is defined using S(\tilde R^-) and S(\tilde R^+), where S denotes the real scores, but the quantities must be the synthetic scores \tilde S at those ranks. As written, the formula mixes real and synthetic order statistics and does not match the derivation in Proposition 3.2, which uses L_m and U_m (defined from synthetic scores). This is a notational slip, but it is load-bearing for implementation: a reader following Algorithm 1 literally would compute an incorrect prediction set. Replace S(\tilde R^\pm) with \tilde S(\tilde R^\pm) throughout.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The abstract claims coverage guarantees 'without making any assumptions about the real and synthetic data distributions,' which is stronger than what the theorems actually require. The results already assume exchangeability of the real calibration and test points, and, after the proposed fix, continuity or tie-breaking of the real scores; the 'no assumptions' claim should be qualified as 'no assumptions on the similarity of the distributions' or similar.
  2. [Algorithm 2, line 3] Algorithm 2 computes synthetic scores for j in [N], but the input subsets are indexed by j in [n] (each subset has size n). The loop should range over [n], not [N], to be consistent with the input specification and the later use of subsets of size n.
  3. [Figure S1 caption] The caption of Figure S1 states that the synthetic (1-alpha) empirical quantile \tilde Q_{1-\alpha} is 'marked in blue,' but in the figure the blue elements are the R_r^+ and R_r^- values; the quantile is outlined in black. Please correct the caption to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the coverage derivation is self-contained, with a non-load-bearing self-citation to Lee et al. whose proof is included in the appendix.

full rationale

The paper's central results, Theorems 3.3 and 3.5, derive coverage bounds from the exchangeability of the real calibration scores with the test score, the explicitly constructed windows in (6)-(7), and the deterministic inclusion relation in display (16). No fitted parameter is later renamed as a prediction: beta is a user-chosen level, and the worst-case bounds depend only on m, N, alpha, and beta. Lemma 3.1 cites Lee et al. [30], which has overlapping authors with the present paper (Lee and Dobriban), but the proof is reproduced in Appendix G.1 and uses only standard order-statistic counting under exchangeability; thus the self-citation is not load-bearing. Other self-citations, such as Romano et al. for APS and CQR score functions, are citations to standard tools rather than to the paper's own claimed result. The continuity issue raised by the skeptic—that Theorem 3.5 assumes continuity of Q but not of P, so the rank of the test score need not be uniform under ties—is a theorem-statement and proof gap, not a circular reduction: it does not define a prediction in terms of a fitted input or import a conclusion from a self-citation. Therefore, while there is a minor self-citation, it is not load-bearing, and the derivation chain is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central guarantee in Theorem 3.5 relies only on exchangeability of the real scores and continuity of Q; the efficiency claim relies on alignment of score distributions. The main free parameter is beta, which trades off tightness of the coverage bounds against informativity. No new physical or formal entities are introduced; the score transporter is a constructed function, not an entity.

free parameters (2)
  • beta = 0.4 in experiments
    Window construction parameter in (6) controls the coverage-efficiency trade-off; user must choose it, or Algorithm 4 can select it to meet a worst-case lower bound.
  • k (number of synthetic subsets) = 20 in subset experiments
    Tuning parameter for SPI-Subset in Algorithm 2; selects k subsets of synthetic data whose score distributions are closest to the real scores.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Real calibration set is exchangeable with the test point.
    Theorems 3.3 and 3.5 rely on the test score's rank being uniform among the m+1 real scores. Stated explicitly in the theorem statements and acknowledged as a limitation in Section 5.
  • domain assumption Synthetic score distribution Q is continuous.
    Theorem 3.5 assumes continuity to avoid ties in synthetic scores. Remark 3.4 shows jittering can enforce this, so it is a technical assumption.
  • domain assumption Score function s is fixed and independent of the calibration data.
    Section 3.1 states 'we assume that the score function s is fixed'. This is standard in split conformal prediction and is used throughout the theoretical analysis.
  • standard math Standard combinatorial and order-statistics identities.
    Lemma 3.1 and the proof of Theorem 3.5 use hypergeometric counts of order-statistic ranks, which are standard and unproved background.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Synthetic-Powered Predictive Inference." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WHPSWJRB

@misc{pith2026250513432,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Synthetic-Powered Predictive Inference},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WHPSWJRB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13432}
}
read the original abstract

Conformal prediction is a framework for predictive inference with a distribution-free, finite-sample guarantee. However, it tends to provide uninformative prediction sets when calibration data are scarce. This paper introduces Synthetic-powered predictive inference (SPI), a novel framework that incorporates synthetic data -- e.g., from a generative model -- to improve sample efficiency. At the core of our method is a score transporter: an empirical quantile mapping that aligns nonconformity scores from trusted, real data with those from synthetic data. By carefully integrating the score transporter into the calibration process, SPI provably achieves finite-sample coverage guarantees without making any assumptions about the real and synthetic data distributions. When the score distributions are well aligned, SPI yields substantially tighter and more informative prediction sets than standard conformal prediction. Experiments on image classification -- augmenting data with synthetic diffusion-model generated images -- and on tabular regression demonstrate notable improvements in predictive efficiency in data-scarce settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13432 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A high-level overview of the proposed method. The approach leverages a small labeled real dataset alongside a large labeled synthetic dataset. The score transporter maps scores from the real domain to the synthetic one. Calibration is then performed using the transported real scores and the synthetic scores. We support our proposed SPI framework with two theoretical guarantees. The first shows that when the syntheti… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the synthetic-powered predictive inference for two candidate labels. Each panel displays sorted nonconformity scores: real scores on the left and synthetic scores on the right. The rectangle indicates the window in the synthetic space to which the test score can be mapped (as defined in (7)). The black-outlined circle indicates the (1 − α)(1 + 1 N )th empirical quantile of the synthetic scores, Q˜ 1−… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of real and generated images for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: presents the performance of various methods under both marginal and label-conditional guarantees at target coverage level 1 − α = 0.95. The label-conditional results are shown for five representative classes. The observations below apply to both the marginal and label-…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows the performance of different methods with marginal and label-conditional guarantees at target coverage level 1 − α = 0.98. The label-conditional results are shown for five representative classes. We see that OnlyReal controls the coverage at the 1 − α level as ex…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Results for the MEPS dataset: Marginal coverage and interval length for each age-group, obtained by OnlyReal, OnlySynth, and SPI. Target coverage is 1 − α = 0.9; experiments are repeated for 100 trials. 5 Discussion In this work, we presented a novel framework that enh…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. General Synthetic-Powered Inference

    stat.ME 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    GESPI combines real and synthetic data by aggregating three runs of a base inference method and guarantees an error rate of at most alpha+epsilon without any assumptions on the synthetic distribution.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [3]

    Medical expenditure panel survey, panel

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Medical expenditure panel survey, panel

    work page

  2. [4]

    A. N. Angelopoulos and S. Bates. A gentle introduction to conformal prediction and distribution-free uncertainty quantification.arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.07511, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  3. [5]

    A. N. Angelopoulos, S. Bates, C. Fannjiang, M. I. Jordan, and T. Zrnic. Prediction-powered inference.Science, 382(6671):669–674, 2023

    2023

  4. [6]

    Bairaktari, J

    K. Bairaktari, J. Wu, and Z. S. Wu. Kandinsky conformal prediction: Beyond class-and covariate-conditional coverage.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.17264, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  5. [7]

    C. R. Banerji, T. Chakraborti, C. Harbron, and B. D. MacArthur. Clinical ai tools must convey predictive uncertainty for each individual patient.Nature medicine, 29(12):2996–2998, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [8]

    R. F. Barber, E. J. Candes, A. Ramdas, and R. J. Tibshirani. Conformal prediction beyond exchangeability. The Annals of Statistics, 51(2):816–845, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [9]

    Bates, E

    S. Bates, E. Candès, L. Lei, Y . Romano, and M. Sesia. Testing for outliers with conformal p-values.The Annals of Statistics, 51(1):149–178, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [10]

    Bommasani, D

    R. Bommasani, D. A. Hudson, E. Adeli, R. Altman, S. Arora, S. von Arx, M. S. Bernstein, J. Bohg, A. Bosselut, E. Brunskill, et al. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258, 2021

    arXiv 2021

Show all 64 references
  1. [11]

    Chernozhukov, K

    V . Chernozhukov, K. Wuthrich, and Y . Zhu. Exact and Robust Conformal Inference Methods for Predictive Machine Learning With Dependent Data. InProceedings of the 31st Conference On Learning Theory, PMLR, volume 75, pages 732–749. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  2. [12]

    Chernozhukov, K

    V . Chernozhukov, K. Wüthrich, and Y . Zhu. Toward personalized inference on individual treatment effects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(7):e2300458120, 2023

    2023

  3. [13]

    J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 248–255. Ieee, 2009

    2009

  4. [14]

    T. Ding, A. Angelopoulos, S. Bates, M. Jordan, and R. J. Tibshirani. Class-conditional conformal prediction with many classes.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:64555–64576, 2023

    2023

  5. [15]

    R. Dunn, L. Wasserman, and A. Ramdas. Distribution-free prediction sets for two-layer hierarchical models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, pages 1–12, 2022

    2022

  6. [16]

    Dutta, H

    S. Dutta, H. Wei, L. van der Laan, and A. Alaa. Estimating uncertainty in multimodal foundation models using public internet data. InR0-FoMo: Robustness of Few-shot and Zero-shot Learning in Large Foundation Models, 2024

    2024

  7. [17]

    Einbinder, Y

    B.-S. Einbinder, Y . Romano, M. Sesia, and Y . Zhou. Training uncertainty-aware classifiers with conformalized deep learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022. 13

    2022

  8. [18]

    Einbinder, L

    B.-S. Einbinder, L. Ringel, and Y . Romano. Semi-supervised risk control via prediction-powered inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.11174, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [19]

    jsp?cboPufNumber=HC-181, 2025

    https://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_stats/download_data_files_detail. jsp?cboPufNumber=HC-181, 2025. Accessed: April, 2025

    2025

  10. [20]

    jsp?cboPufNumber=HC-181, 2020

    https://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_stats/download_data_files_detail. jsp?cboPufNumber=HC-181, 2020. Accessed: April, 2025

    2020

  11. [21]

    jsp?cboPufNumber=HC-192, 2020

    https://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_stats/download_data_files_detail. jsp?cboPufNumber=HC-192, 2020. Accessed: April, 2025

    2020

  12. [22]

    Fisch, T

    A. Fisch, T. Schuster, T. Jaakkola, and R. Barzilay. Few-shot conformal prediction with auxiliary tasks. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 3329–3339. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  13. [23]

    Gibbs and E

    I. Gibbs and E. Candes. Adaptive conformal inference under distribution shift.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:1660–1672, 2021

    2021

  14. [24]

    Gibbs, J

    I. Gibbs, J. J. Cherian, and E. J. Candès. Conformal prediction with conditional guarantees.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, page qkaf008, 2025

    2025

  15. [25]

    L. Guan. Localized conformal prediction: A generalized inference framework for conformal prediction. Biometrika, 110(1):33–50, 2023

    2023

  16. [26]

    L. Guan. A conformal test of linear models via permutation-augmented regressions.The Annals of Statistics, 52(5):2059–2080, 2024

    2024

  17. [27]

    Guan and R

    L. Guan and R. Tibshirani. Prediction and outlier detection in classification problems.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 84(2):524–546, 2022

    2022

  18. [28]

    Hore and R

    R. Hore and R. F. Barber. Conformal prediction with local weights: randomization enables robust guarantees. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 87(2):549–578, 2025

    2025

  19. [29]

    Ilharco, M

    G. Ilharco, M. Wortsman, R. Wightman, C. Gordon, N. Carlini, R. Taori, A. Dave, V . Shankar, H. Namkoong, J. Miller, H. Hajishirzi, A. Farhadi, and L. Schmidt. Openclip. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo. 5143773, July 2021. Version 0.1, Zenodo

    2021 doi

  20. [30]

    Joshi, S

    S. Joshi, S. Kiyani, G. Pappas, E. Dobriban, and H. Hassani. Likelihood-ratio regularized quantile regression: Adapting conformal prediction to high-dimensional covariate shifts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13030, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  21. [31]

    C. Jung, G. Noarov, R. Ramalingam, and A. Roth. Batch multivalid conformal prediction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15145, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  22. [32]

    B. F. Labs. Flux: High-fidelity text-to-image generation with transformer diffusion models. https:// huggingface.co/black-forest-labs/FLUX.1-dev, 2024. Accessed: May 2025

    2024

  23. [33]

    Y . Lee, E. T. Tchetgen, and E. Dobriban. Batch predictive inference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.13990, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [34]

    Lei and L

    J. Lei and L. Wasserman. Distribution-free prediction bands for non-parametric regression.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 76(1):71–96, 2014

    2014

  25. [35]

    J. Lei, J. Robins, and L. Wasserman. Distribution-free prediction sets.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 108(501):278–287, 2013

    2013

  26. [36]

    J. Lei, A. Rinaldo, and L. Wasserman. A conformal prediction approach to explore functional data.Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 74(1):29–43, 2015

    2015

  27. [37]

    J. Lei, M. G’Sell, A. Rinaldo, R. Tibshirani, and L. Wasserman. Distribution-free predictive inference for regression.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 113(523):1094–1111, 2018

    2018

  28. [38]

    Liang, M

    Z. Liang, M. Sesia, and W. Sun. Integrative conformal p-values for powerful out-of-distribution testing with labeled outliers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.11111, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  29. [39]

    Liang, Y

    Z. Liang, Y . Zhou, and M. Sesia. Conformal inference is (almost) free for neural networks trained with early stopping. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, 2023

    2023

  30. [40]

    Liu and X.-L

    K. Liu and X.-L. Meng. There is individualized treatment. why not individualized inference?Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 3(1):79–111, 2016. 14

    2016

  31. [41]

    Papadopoulos, K

    H. Papadopoulos, K. Proedrou, V . V ovk, and A. Gammerman. Inductive confidence machines for regression. InEuropean Conference on Machine Learning, pages 345–356. Springer, 2002

    2002

  32. [42]

    S. Park, E. Dobriban, I. Lee, and O. Bastani. PAC prediction sets under covariate shift. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2022

    2022

  33. [43]

    S. Park, K. M. Cohen, and O. Simeone. Few-shot calibration of set predictors via meta-learned cross-validation- based conformal prediction.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 46(1):280–291, 2023

    2023

  34. [44]

    Podkopaev and A

    A. Podkopaev and A. Ramdas. Distribution-free uncertainty quantification for classification under label shift. InUncertainty in artificial intelligence, pages 844–853. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  35. [45]

    Radford, J

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 8748–8763. PmLR, 2021

    2021

  36. [46]

    Romano, E

    Y . Romano, E. Patterson, and E. Candes. Conformalized quantile regression.Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  37. [47]

    Romano, M

    Y . Romano, M. Sesia, and E. Candes. Classification with valid and adaptive coverage.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:3581–3591, 2020

    2020

  38. [48]

    Rombach, A

    R. Rombach, A. Blattmann, D. Lorenz, P. Esser, and B. Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 10684–10695, June 2022

    2022

  39. [49]

    Sadinle, J

    M. Sadinle, J. Lei, and L. Wasserman. Least Ambiguous Set-Valued Classifiers With Bounded Error Levels. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 114(525):223–234, 2019

    2019

  40. [50]

    Saunders, A

    C. Saunders, A. Gammerman, and V . V ovk. Transduction with confidence and credibility. InIJCAI, 1999

    1999

  41. [51]

    Scheffe and J

    H. Scheffe and J. W. Tukey. Non-parametric estimation. i. validation of order statistics.The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 16(2):187–192, 1945

    1945

  42. [52]

    Schuhmann, R

    C. Schuhmann, R. Beaumont, R. Vencu, C. Gordon, R. Wightman, M. Cherti, T. Coombes, A. Katta, C. Mullis, M. Wortsman, et al. Laion-5b: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:25278–25294, 2022

    2022

  43. [53]

    Sesia, Y

    M. Sesia, Y . R. Wang, and X. Tong. Adaptive conformal classification with noisy labels.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, page qkae114, 2024

    2024

  44. [54]

    Stutz, A

    D. Stutz, A. G. Roy, T. Matejovicova, P. Strachan, A. T. Cemgil, and A. Doucet. Conformal prediction under ambiguous ground truth.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2024

    2024

  45. [55]

    R. J. Tibshirani, R. Foygel Barber, E. J. Candès, and A. Ramdas. Conformal prediction under covariate shift. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  46. [56]

    J. W. Tukey. Non-parametric estimation ii. statistically equivalent blocks and tolerance regions–the continuous case.The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, pages 529–539, 1947

    1947

  47. [57]

    J. W. Tukey. Nonparametric estimation, iii. statistically equivalent blocks and multivariate tolerance regions–the discontinuous case.The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, pages 30–39, 1948

    1948

  48. [58]

    V . V ovk. Conditional validity of inductive conformal predictors. InAsian conference on machine learning, pages 475–490. PMLR, 2012

    2012

  49. [59]

    V ovk, A

    V . V ovk, A. Gammerman, and C. Saunders. Machine-learning applications of algorithmic randomness. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 1999. 15

    1999

  50. [60]

    V ovk, D

    V . V ovk, D. Lindsay, I. Nouretdinov, and A. Gammerman. Mondrian confidence machine.Technical Report, 2003

    2003

  51. [61]

    V ovk, A

    V . V ovk, A. Gammerman, and G. Shafer.Algorithmic learning in a random world. Springer Science & Business Media, 2005

    2005

  52. [62]

    A. Wald. An extension of wilks’ method for setting tolerance limits.The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 14(1):45–55, 1943

    1943

  53. [63]

    S. S. Wilks. Determination of sample sizes for setting tolerance limits.The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 12(1):91–96, 1941

    1941

  54. [64]

    S. S. Wilks.Mathematical statistics. Wiley, 1962

    1962

  55. [65]

    R. Xie, R. Barber, and E. Candes. Boosted conformal prediction intervals.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:71868–71899, 2024

    2024

  56. [66]

    A photo of a {class name}

    Y . Zhang and E. J. Candès. Posterior conformal prediction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.19712, 2024. 16 A Algorithmic details Algorithm 1Synthetic-powered predictive inference (SPI) 1: Input:Real calibration set (Xi,Yi)i∈[m]; synthetic calibration set ( ˜Xi, ˜Yi)i∈[N] ; test inpu...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.