stat.MEFeb 23, 2026
SaveConformal Risk Control for Non-Monotonic Losses
Organizations: Arena
Abstract
Conformal risk control is an extension of conformal prediction for controlling risk functions beyond miscoverage. The original algorithm controls the expected value of a loss that is monotonic in a one-dimensional parameter. Here, we present risk control guarantees for generic algorithms applied to possibly non-monotonic losses with multidimensional parameters. The guarantees depend on the stability of the algorithm -- unstable algorithms have looser guarantees. We give applications of this technique to selective image classification, FDR and IOU control of tumor segmentations, and multigroup debiasing of recidivism predictions across overlapping race and sex groups using empirical risk minimization.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Cumulative average error for three scenarios alongside the shrinking interval from Proposition 5 , with and . In each case independently. In the well-ranked case, , , a linear decay from to at the midpoint, so that crosses below in the second half and eventually exits the interval. In the poorly ranked case, for all ; the constant rate exceeds , and remains above the interval. In the poorly ranked adversarial case, for all ; the average concentrates near but stays below the interval as it shrinks toward from above. The blue band is the interval; the gray dotted line marks . is the number of for which lands inside the interval.
Figure 2: Selective classification results on Imagenet. The left panel shows the choices of thresholds from CRC, CRC-C, and LTT superimposed with the population accuracy curve. The middle panel shows a kernel density estimate of the prediction rate for all three methods over 100 resamplings of the data. The right panel shows a similar plot for the selective accuracy.
Figure 3: FDR control results in polyp segmentation. The top left and bottom left panels show examples of polyp images and predicted masks from the PraNet, respectively. The top middle and right panels show histograms of the FDR and prediction rate for CRC-C, CRC, and LTT, over 100 resamplings of the data, respectively. Notice that CRC and CRC-C overlap almost entirely. The bottom right panel shows selections of made by the three methods on the calibration data superimposed with the true FDR calculated over the whole dataset.
Figure 4: IOU control results in polyp segmentation. The left and middle panels show histograms of the IOU and segmentation parameter for ERM over 100 resamplings of the data, respectively. The right panel shows the selection of superimposed with the true IOU calculated over the whole dataset.
Figure 5: Results of multigroup debiasing on COMPAS dataset. Each row is a group, and the horizontal axis shows the amount of predictive bias. Each violin plot shows the bias over 100 resamplings of the data for each method.
Explore similar work
Conformal risk control (CRC) provides distribution-free guarantees for controlling the expected loss at a user-specified level. Existing theory typically assumes that the loss decreases monotonically with a tuning parameter that governs the size of the prediction set. However, this assumption is often violated in practice, where losses may behave non-monotonically due to competing objectives such as coverage and efficiency. In this paper, we study CRC under non-monotone loss functions when the tuning parameter is selected from a finite grid, a setting commonly arising in thresholding and discretized decision rules. Revisiting a known counterexample, we show that the validity of CRC without monotonicity depends critically on the relationship between the calibration sample size and the grid resolution. In particular, reliable risk control can still be achieved when the calibration sample is sufficiently large relative to the grid size. We establish a finite-sample guarantee for bounded losses over a grid of size , showing that the excess risk above the target level scales on the order of , where is the calibration sample size. A matching lower bound demonstrates that this rate is minimax optimal. We also derive refined guarantees under additional structural conditions, including Lipschitz continuity and monotonicity, and extend the analysis to settings with distribution shift via importance weighting. Numerical experiments on synthetic multilabel classification and real object detection data illustrate the practical implications of non-monotonicity. Methods that explicitly account for finite-sample uncertainty achieve more stable risk control than approaches based on monotonicity transformations, while maintaining competitive prediction set sizes.
ReCIRC: Rectified Conformal Risk Control
Many applications of black-box predictive models require controlling task-relevant error rates, such as missed lesion pixels in segmentation or missed labels in multilabel classification. Conformal risk control (CRC; Angelopoulos et al., arXiv:2208.02814) gives distribution-free guarantees for such losses, but it calibrates a single threshold shared by all inputs. Because conditional risk varies with the input, this marginal guarantee often overprotects easy cases and underprotects hard ones. We propose ReCIRC (Rectified Conformal Risk Control), which inverts each input's estimated local risk curve to reparameterize the calibrated threshold as a risk budget representing a common target conditional risk, and then applies CRC unchanged to the resulting family. ReCIRC retains CRC's finite-sample marginal guarantee regardless of the accuracy of the estimated curves, while accurate curves yield approximate conditional risk control and, under additional conditions, asymptotically exact conditional risk control; they also support a risk-calibration diagnostic. Across three synthetic and five real-data settings spanning segmentation, multilabel and multiclass classification, and regression, ReCIRC attained the lowest average worst-group risk and mean positive group excess in every setting, while maintaining marginal risk close to the target, whereas changes in prediction size were application-dependent.
A Joint Finite-Sample Certificate for Adaptive Selective Conformal Risk Control
Selective predictors answer on confident inputs and abstain elsewhere; deploying one safely needs a single finite-sample certificate that simultaneously upper-bounds the selected risk, lower-bounds the acceptance probability above a floor , and lower-bounds the deployment utility. This certificate must be valid under adaptive threshold selection from a finite grid of pairs on samples. We give such a certificate for bounded, possibly non-monotone losses by treating the selected risk directly as a ratio rather than through a Hoeffding-style range bound. The construction couples three confidence bounds: a variance-adaptive empirical-Bernstein bound on the ratio risk, a Clopper--Pearson bound on acceptance, and a two-sided closeness bound on utility. Together they lower-bound the certified policy's utility absolutely and to within of the best over the certified set, both non-vacuous whenever feasible; a regime-scoped third leg matches an external oracle, informative only where the risk margin and vacuous at the headline operating points. Relative to the range-only Hoeffding-ratio construction this sharpens the acceptance-floor dependence from to , and a closed-form corollary identifies a per-pair regime in which our risk bound dominates a Hoeffding conformal risk control (Hoeffding--CRC) selective bound. Empirically, on ImageNet (three ResNets) and COCO val 2017 panoptic, the certificate opens a pp certified-acceptance frontier over Hoeffding--CRC and is tighter than a non-vacuous matched-valid baseline; these gains are regime-scoped, not universal, and absent on ADE20K. The certifier runs in time.