pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.06058 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.RO· cs.SY

Staggered Integral Online Conformal Prediction for Safe Dynamics Adaptation with Multi-Step Coverage Guarantees

Daniel M. Cherenson , Dimitra Panagou This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 19:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.ROcs.SY
keywords online conformal predictionsafety-critical controldynamics adaptationrobust tube MPCuncertainty quantificationquadcopter controldeep neural networkscoverage guarantees
0
0 comments X

The pith

Staggered Integral Online Conformal Prediction quantifies the combined effects of disturbances and learning errors to deliver long-run coverage guarantees for adaptive dynamical systems.

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

The paper introduces Staggered Integral Online Conformal Prediction (SI-OCP) as a way to handle uncertainty in systems that adapt their dynamics online without access to state derivative measurements. Standard online conformal prediction falls short in these cases because it cannot directly capture the lumped impact of external disturbances and model learning inaccuracies. By using an integral score function instead, SI-OCP achieves long-run coverage guarantees. These guarantees translate into long-run safety when the method is paired with controllers such as robust tube model predictive control. The approach is demonstrated on a deep neural network adaptive quadcopter, showing it works with complex learning-based parameterizations.

Core claim

The central claim is that SI-OCP, which employs an integral score function to measure the aggregated effect of disturbance and learning error, provides long-run coverage guarantees. This enables the synthesis of safe controllers for uncertain adaptive systems, such as robust tube MPC, resulting in long-run safety properties. The method addresses limitations of standard online conformal prediction in scenarios lacking state derivative measurements.

What carries the argument

The staggered integral score function, which integrates prediction errors over time to quantify lumped uncertainty without requiring derivative measurements.

If this is right

  • The algorithm yields long-run coverage guarantees for the uncertainty bounds.
  • When combined with robust tube model predictive control, it ensures long-run safety for the closed-loop system.
  • It applies to systems using all-layer deep neural network adaptations, as shown in quadcopter simulations.
  • Multi-step coverage guarantees are maintained through the staggered integral approach.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This could extend to other adaptive control architectures beyond DNNs if the online revelation of truth values is available.
  • It suggests potential improvements in performance over conservative worst-case bounds in safety-critical applications.
  • Testing in physical experiments would verify the long-run guarantees beyond numerical simulations.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that an integral score function can accurately quantify the lumped disturbance and learning error effects without state derivative measurements, and that online truth revelation supports the long-run coverage.

What would settle it

A counterexample simulation or experiment where the SI-OCP bounds fail to cover the actual errors over long horizons despite following the algorithm, or where the combined controller violates safety constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.06058 by Daniel M. Cherenson, Dimitra Panagou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Block diagram of our proposed framework, where we highlight [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) When adaptation is disabled, the true disturbance is larger [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Safety-critical control of uncertain, adaptive systems often relies on conservative, worst-case uncertainty bounds that limit closed-loop performance. Online conformal prediction is a powerful data-driven method for quantifying uncertainty when truth values of predicted outputs are revealed online; however, for systems that adapt the dynamics without measurements of the state derivatives, standard online conformal prediction is insufficient to quantify the model uncertainty. We propose Staggered Integral Online Conformal Prediction (SI-OCP), an algorithm utilizing an integral score function to quantify the lumped effect of disturbance and learning error. This approach provides long-run coverage guarantees, resulting in long-run safety when synthesized with safety-critical controllers, including robust tube model predictive control. Finally, we validate the proposed approach through a numerical simulation of an all-layer deep neural network (DNN) adaptive quadcopter using robust tube MPC, highlighting the applicability of our method to complex learning parameterizations and control strategies.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes Staggered Integral Online Conformal Prediction (SI-OCP), an algorithm that employs an integral nonconformity score to quantify the combined effects of exogenous disturbances and learning errors in adaptive dynamical systems when state derivative measurements are unavailable. It claims that this construction yields long-run coverage guarantees, which in turn ensure long-run safety when the predictor is synthesized with safety-critical controllers such as robust tube model predictive control. The approach is illustrated by a numerical simulation of an all-layer DNN adaptive quadcopter under tube MPC.

Significance. If the long-run coverage result holds under ongoing DNN adaptation, the work would provide a practical data-driven method for reducing conservatism in uncertainty bounds for learning-based control of uncertain dynamics, with direct applicability to robotic systems. The use of integral scores to handle lumped errors and the multi-step guarantee are potentially useful extensions of online conformal prediction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theoretical guarantees] The long-run coverage theorem (presumably in the theoretical analysis section) must explicitly state and verify the conditions (e.g., martingale or ergodic properties of the score sequence) under which the staggered integral construction preserves asymptotic coverage when the nonconformity scores are generated by an all-layer DNN whose parameters are updated from the same state trajectory, thereby inducing dependence and distribution shift.
  2. [SI-OCP algorithm] The definition of the integral score function (in the SI-OCP algorithm section) must be shown to correctly lump disturbance and residual learning error from state measurements alone; the manuscript should provide the explicit integral expression and demonstrate that no implicit differentiation is required while still satisfying the conditions for the coverage guarantee.
  3. [Numerical simulation] In the numerical simulation section, quantitative results on empirical multi-step coverage rates, safety violation frequencies, and comparisons against standard online conformal prediction and non-adaptive baselines are needed to substantiate the claimed long-run safety properties under DNN adaptation.
minor comments (2)
  1. Clarify the precise definition and notation of the staggered integral score to avoid ambiguity in how the integral is computed over the prediction horizon.
  2. [Simulation setup] Include additional details on the quadcopter dynamics, DNN architecture, and adaptation law in the simulation setup to support reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating where revisions will be made to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Theoretical guarantees] The long-run coverage theorem (presumably in the theoretical analysis section) must explicitly state and verify the conditions (e.g., martingale or ergodic properties of the score sequence) under which the staggered integral construction preserves asymptotic coverage when the nonconformity scores are generated by an all-layer DNN whose parameters are updated from the same state trajectory, thereby inducing dependence and distribution shift.

    Authors: We agree that the dependence structure induced by simultaneous DNN adaptation and state evolution must be addressed explicitly. The long-run coverage result in the theoretical section relies on the staggered integral scores forming an ergodic sequence whose time averages converge despite the slow distribution shift from parameter updates. We will revise the theorem statement to list the precise conditions: the score process has bounded second moments, the DNN parameter updates are Lipschitz continuous with respect to the state, and the staggering interval is chosen longer than the adaptation timescale. The proof already uses these to apply a dependent-process law of large numbers; we will expand the verification in the revised manuscript. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [SI-OCP algorithm] The definition of the integral score function (in the SI-OCP algorithm section) must be shown to correctly lump disturbance and residual learning error from state measurements alone; the manuscript should provide the explicit integral expression and demonstrate that no implicit differentiation is required while still satisfying the conditions for the coverage guarantee.

    Authors: The integral nonconformity score is defined explicitly as the Euclidean norm of the integrated state prediction error over a sliding window of length τ: s_t = ||∫_{t-τ}^t (x(s) - f(x(s), u(s); θ_{t-τ})) ds||_2, where f is the DNN-modeled dynamics and only position/state measurements x(s) are used. This expression directly accumulates the lumped effect of exogenous disturbance and the integrated residual learning error without any derivative information or implicit differentiation. We will add a supporting lemma proving that this integral score satisfies the required submartingale property for the multi-step coverage guarantee, confirming that the staggering construction preserves validity under the stated assumptions. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Numerical simulation] In the numerical simulation section, quantitative results on empirical multi-step coverage rates, safety violation frequencies, and comparisons against standard online conformal prediction and non-adaptive baselines are needed to substantiate the claimed long-run safety properties under DNN adaptation.

    Authors: The existing simulation illustrates the quadcopter example qualitatively. In the revised version we will augment the numerical section with quantitative tables and figures reporting: empirical multi-step coverage rates (averaged over 50 Monte Carlo trajectories, showing convergence to the target level), safety violation counts (near zero under SI-OCP + tube MPC), and side-by-side comparisons against (i) standard online conformal prediction (which exhibits coverage failure without derivative measurements) and (ii) non-adaptive robust bounds (which remain more conservative). These additions will directly support the long-run safety claims. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation extends established OCP principles independently

full rationale

The paper defines SI-OCP via an integral nonconformity score constructed from state measurements to lump disturbance and learning error, then invokes long-run coverage guarantees for synthesis with tube MPC. No quoted step reduces a claimed prediction or guarantee to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or load-bearing self-citation by construction. The central coverage result is presented as an extension of online conformal prediction under the stated assumptions on the score sequence, with the numerical example serving only as validation rather than a definitional input. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

Review is abstract-only, so the ledger reflects only explicitly stated elements; the full paper likely contains additional free parameters (e.g., coverage level, staggering interval) and standard conformal-prediction axioms.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Truth values of predicted outputs are revealed online
    Required for the online conformal prediction framework as described in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Systems adapt dynamics without measurements of state derivatives
    Explicitly stated as the regime where standard online conformal prediction is insufficient.
invented entities (1)
  • Staggered Integral Online Conformal Prediction (SI-OCP) no independent evidence
    purpose: Quantify the lumped effect of disturbance and learning error via an integral score function
    Newly introduced algorithm whose coverage properties are claimed in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5463 in / 1377 out tokens · 49739 ms · 2026-05-10T19:42:53.420354+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Explainable Wastewater Digital Twins: Adaptive Context-Conditioned Structured Simulators with Self-Falsifying Decision Support

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    CCSS-IX is a context-conditioned structured simulator for wastewater digital twins that uses adaptive expert mixing and self-falsifying conformal decision rules to reduce unsafe actions while maintaining low predictio...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Robust adaptive control barrier functions: An adaptive and data-driven approach to safety,

    B. T. Lopez, J.-J. E. Slotine, and J. P. How, “Robust adaptive control barrier functions: An adaptive and data-driven approach to safety,” IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1031–1036, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Deep Learning Tubes for Tube MPC,

    D. Fan, A. Agha, and E. Theodorou, “Deep Learning Tubes for Tube MPC,” inProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    A fixed-time stable adaptation law for safety-critical control under parametric uncertainty,

    M. Black, E. Arabi, and D. Panagou, “A fixed-time stable adaptation law for safety-critical control under parametric uncertainty,” inEuro- pean Control Conference (ECC), 2021, pp. 1328–1333

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Uncertainty quan- tification for recursive estimation in adaptive safety-critical control,

    M. H. Cohen, M. Mann, K. Leahy, and C. Belta, “Uncertainty quan- tification for recursive estimation in adaptive safety-critical control,” inAmerican Control Conference (ACC), 2024, pp. 3885–3890

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Robust adaptive mpc using uncertainty compensation,

    R. Tao, P. Zhao, I. Kolmanovsky, and N. Hovakimyan, “Robust adaptive mpc using uncertainty compensation,” inAmerican Control Conference (ACC), 2024, pp. 1873–1878

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Safe planning in dynamic environments using conformal prediction,

    L. Lindemann, M. Cleaveland, G. Shim, and G. J. Pappas, “Safe planning in dynamic environments using conformal prediction,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 5116–5123, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Conformal prediction: A gentle introduction,

    A. N. Angelopoulos and S. Bates, “Conformal prediction: A gentle introduction,”Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 494–591, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Adaptive conformal inference under dis- tribution shift,

    I. Gibbs and E. Candes, “Adaptive conformal inference under dis- tribution shift,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), pp. 1660–1672, 2021

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    Online conformal prediction with decaying step sizes,

    A. N. Angelopoulos, R. Barber, and S. Bates, “Online conformal prediction with decaying step sizes,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), vol. 235, 2024, pp. 1616–1630

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    Online conformal prediction via online optimization,

    F. Areces, C. Mohri, T. Hashimoto, and J. Duchi, “Online conformal prediction via online optimization,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2025. 2GitHub: https://github.com/dcherenson/staggered-integral-ocp

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    Adaptive conformal prediction for motion planning among dynamic agents,

    A. Dixit, L. Lindemann, S. X. Wei, M. Cleaveland, G. J. Pappas, and J. W. Burdick, “Adaptive conformal prediction for motion planning among dynamic agents,” inLearning for Dynamics and Control Conference (L4DC), 2023, pp. 300–314

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Safety-critical control with uncer- tainty quantification using adaptive conformal prediction,

    H. Zhou, Y . Zhang, and W. Luo, “Safety-critical control with uncer- tainty quantification using adaptive conformal prediction,” inAmerican Control Conference (ACC), 2024, pp. 574–580

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Safety-critical control with offline-online neural network inference and adaptive conformal predic- tion,

    J. Zhang, S. Z. Yong, and D. Panagou, “Safety-critical control with offline-online neural network inference and adaptive conformal predic- tion,” inAmerican Control Conference (ACC), 2025, pp. 2639–2644

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Computationally and sample efficient safe reinforcement learning using adaptive conformal prediction,

    H. Zhou, Y . Zhang, and W. Luo, “Computationally and sample efficient safe reinforcement learning using adaptive conformal prediction,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2025, pp. 01–07

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    Integral concurrent learning: Adaptive control with parameter convergence using finite excitation,

    A. Parikh, R. Kamalapurkar, and W. E. Dixon, “Integral concurrent learning: Adaptive control with parameter convergence using finite excitation,”International Journal of Adaptive Control and Signal Processing, vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 1775–1787, 2019

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    Deep residual neural network (resnet)-based adaptive control: A lyapunov-based approach,

    O. S. Patil, D. M. Le, E. J. Griffis, and W. E. Dixon, “Deep residual neural network (resnet)-based adaptive control: A lyapunov-based approach,” inIEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2022, pp. 3487–3492

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Self-supervised meta-learning for all-layer dnn-based adaptive control with stability guarantees,

    G. He, Y . Choudhary, and G. Shi, “Self-supervised meta-learning for all-layer dnn-based adaptive control with stability guarantees,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2025, pp. 6012–6018

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    Dynamic tube mpc for nonlinear systems,

    B. T. Lopez, J.-J. E. Slotine, and J. P. How, “Dynamic tube mpc for nonlinear systems,” inAmerican Control Conference (ACC), 2019, pp. 1655–1662

    work page 2019

  19. [19]

    Lavretsky and K

    E. Lavretsky and K. A. Wise,Robust and adaptive control: With aerospace applications. Springer, 2024

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    Concurrent learning for convergence in adaptive control without persistency of excitation,

    G. Chowdhary and E. Johnson, “Concurrent learning for convergence in adaptive control without persistency of excitation,” inIEEE Con- ference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2010, pp. 3674–3679

    work page 2010

  21. [21]

    Neural-fly enables rapid learning for agile flight in strong winds,

    M. O’Connell, G. Shi, X. Shi, K. Azizzadenesheli, A. Anandkumar, Y . Yue, and S.-J. Chung, “Neural-fly enables rapid learning for agile flight in strong winds,”Science Robotics, vol. 7, no. 66, p. eabm6597, 2022

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Neural lander: Stable drone landing control using learned dynamics,

    G. Shi, X. Shi, M. O’Connell, R. Yu, K. Azizzadenesheli, A. Anand- kumar, Y . Yue, and S.-J. Chung, “Neural lander: Stable drone landing control using learned dynamics,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2019, pp. 9784–9790

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    Regression quantiles,

    R. Koenker and G. Bassett Jr, “Regression quantiles,”Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pp. 33–50, 1978

    work page 1978

  24. [24]

    Robust model predictive shielding for safe rein- forcement learning with stochastic dynamics,

    S. Li and O. Bastani, “Robust model predictive shielding for safe rein- forcement learning with stochastic dynamics,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2020, pp. 7166– 7172

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    gatekeeper: Online safety verification and control for nonlinear systems in dynamic environ- ments,

    D. R. Agrawal, R. Chen, and D. Panagou, “gatekeeper: Online safety verification and control for nonlinear systems in dynamic environ- ments,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 40, pp. 4358–4375, 2024

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Safety on the fly: Constructing robust safety filters via policy control barrier functions at runtime,

    L. Knoedler, O. So, J. Yin, M. Black, Z. Serlin, P. Tsiotras, J. Alonso- Mora, and C. Fan, “Safety on the fly: Constructing robust safety filters via policy control barrier functions at runtime,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2025

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    A formal gatekeeper framework for safe dual control with active exploration,

    K. B. Naveed, D. R. Agrawal, and D. Panagou, “A formal gatekeeper framework for safe dual control with active exploration,” inAmerican Control Conference (ACC), 2026

    work page 2026