Conformal Calibration Transfer

Existing evaluations of conformal prediction, such as prediction efficiency and test-conditional coverage, are defined in expectation over the calibration data. In practice, when only one calibration set of limited size is available, prediction sets often exhibit high variability in size, especially for methods with localization. We formalize this concern as set stability, defined as the variance of the conditional expectation of the set size given the calibration data. To improve stability without requiring additional target-task labels, we propose Stable Conformal Prediction (StCP), a transfer learning approach that utilizes labeled source-task data and unlabeled target data. Theoretically, we characterize the marginal coverage and stability of StCP; empirically, it delivers more stable prediction sets than standard conformal prediction methods, especially for those with localization, when calibration data are limited.

Conformal Bayes combines Bayesian posterior predictives with conformal calibration to produce prediction sets that are both statistically valid and geometrically efficient. We study conformal Bayes under label shift from a unified perspective, identifying two complementary approaches that restore nominal target-domain coverage through importance-weighted conformal calibration but operate through independent mechanisms. \emph{Post-hoc calibration} tilts the posterior predictive toward the target domain and corrects the conformal threshold via an importance-weighted quantile, leaving the parameter posterior unchanged. \emph{In-training adaptation} tilts the parameter posterior itself to the target domain, producing a corrected predictive whose highest predictive density region serves as the highest predictive density (HPD)-based prediction set under the fitted target predictive; efficiency is model-dependent and does not imply finite-sample conditional optimality. Two controlled experiments isolate the regime-dependence of each strategy: in the low-dimensional, well-estimated regime StrategyA produces the narrowest valid intervals, while in the high-dimensional, underdetermined regime StrategyB achieves up to $43\%$ width reduction at unchanged coverage, under the stated source-sampling and label-shift assumptions.

Conformal prediction certifies that a classifier's prediction sets cover the truth, and that certificate is marginal. Many recognition benchmarks build distribution shift into evaluation, placing disjoint conditions in the training and test splits. Under that shift the certificate stays reassuring while per class coverage fails silently: on a real cross subject skeleton benchmark marginal coverage holds near ninety percent while the worst class is covered about seventy percent and ten of sixty classes fall below eighty percent. This class specific undercoverage stays hidden behind a single reassuring marginal number. Once the shift acts jointly on covariates and labels, the target class conditional score law is unidentified, so no label free method is at once per class valid and efficient uniformly over target laws consistent with the observed source joint distribution and target covariate marginal. The per class labels needed to recover every class threshold to a given tolerance grow as the inverse square of that tolerance and the logarithm of the class count, with matching bounds for classwise threshold procedures. Pseudo labels do not shortcut it: the best prediction powered estimator gains at most a small constant factor where coverage collapses. Across three real shifts and an image corruption benchmark, source label calibration recovers much of the gap while marginal coverage holds, and stops once it breaks.