Risk-Aware Online Conformal State Probing

Uncertainty quantification is essential when deploying machine learning models in safety-critical applications. Online conformal prediction (OCP) provides theoretically principled uncertainty quantification for arbitrary black-box classifiers and non-i.i.d. data streams by constructing prediction sets that are guaranteed to contain the true label at a user-specified frequency. OCP usually updates prediction sets using feedback from previously deployed predictions. We instead study an OCP setting beyond feedback: on each round, the learner can either output a prediction set or query the correct label, but not both. Thus, no deployed prediction is ever evaluated directly. We reduce this problem to a partial monitoring game in which prediction actions return no observation and a separate query action reveals the label. The reward function is constructed in a way that encourages the learner to output small prediction sets while ensuring that the correct label is covered with a sufficiently high probability. To solve this game, we develop OCP with queries (OCPQ) by adapting the label efficient forecaster of Cesa-Bianchi, Lugosi, and Stoltz (2004) to our setting. For any black box classifier and any (non-i.i.d.) oblivious data stream of length $T$, OCPQ has $O(T^{2/3})$ expected regret and expected coverage at least $β-O(T^{-1/3})$ for a user-defined $β$, while querying only an expected $T^{-1/3}$ fraction of rounds. This provides coverage comparable to bandit-based OCP methods while requiring no feedback from deployed prediction sets. Experiments on real-world datasets further demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach.

An agent must try new behaviors to explore and improve. In high-stakes environments, an agent that violates safety constraints may cause harm and must be taken offline, curtailing any future interaction. Imitating old behavior is safe, but excessive conservatism discourages exploration. How much behavior change is too much? We show how to use any safe reference policy as a probabilistic regulator for any optimized but untested policy. Conformal calibration on data from the safe policy determines how aggressively the new policy can act, while provably enforcing the user's declared risk tolerance. Unlike conservative optimization methods, we do not assume the user has identified the correct model class nor tuned any hyperparameters. Unlike previous conformal methods, our theory provides finite-sample guarantees even for non-monotonic bounded loss functions, and it introduces a new policy control setting. Our experiments on applications ranging from natural language question answering to biomolecular engineering show that safe exploration is not only possible from the first moment of deployment, but can also improve performance.

Language agents acting over long horizons must maintain beliefs about tool states, object locations, graph edges, and subgoal dependencies. When these beliefs drift, failures can be fixed neither by longer reasoning traces nor by ordinary self-reflection, since the missing evidence lies in the environment. We formulate environment probing as a budgeted decision problem for structured agent world models: before acting, the agent may query the current value of one belief field, update its table, and pay one interaction step. We introduce EnvProbe, a simple scoring policy that combines task criticality, staleness, verbalized uncertainty, and dependency role. A type-stratified analysis separates the benefit of belief repair from the cost of displaced task actions and predicts different behavior for procedural and spatial beliefs. In three controlled environments with gold belief states, EnvProbe improves terminal world-state accuracy over periodic probing by 11.76 percentage points on procedural tool-dependency tasks, 3.79 points on spatial tasks, and 6.45 points overall. Ablations show that task-structural terms are the main source of the gains, while self-reported uncertainty is unreliable under confident wrong beliefs. The results suggest that agent calibration should be treated as an action-selection problem over environment evidence, not only as a model-internal reasoning problem.