Prediction sets built from an LLM judge can undercover when deployment traffic changes the prevalence of task or policy groups. Weighted conformal prediction is exact under covariate shift when the density ratio is known, but group proportions must usually be estimated from finite unlabeled samples. We introduce confidence-set weighted conformal prediction (CS-WCP), which constructs simultaneous exact intervals for source and target group masses and returns the union of weighted conformal sets over every compatible ratio vector. For a fixed or independently learned finite partition, CS-WCP attains coverage at least 1-alpha-delta_w-tau_A-kappa, where tau_A measures within-cell covariate mismatch and kappa measures conditional shift. A linear endpoint rule computes the robust union in O(G|Y|) time. Across 336 constructed shared-support traffic shifts, CS-WCP reaches 0.973 mean coverage with 13 point failures, compared with 0.954 and 44 failures for source conformal prediction, at mean binary set sizes 1.74 and 1.65. On 336 natural cross-task transfers, coverage rises from 0.882 to 0.962, but mean set size reaches 1.87 and a size-matched group plug-in baseline is competitive. The method therefore supplies an auditable coverage safeguard under uncertain mixture weights; its value is conservative tail protection, not scalar probability calibration or uniformly smaller sets.
Figures & tables
Method
Shift structure
Unknown quantity
Guarantee target
Difference from CS-WCP
WCP
covariate shift
full ratio
marginal coverage
assumes known ratio for exact validity
GWCP
observed finite groups
group proportions
near/exact corrected coverage
pools group score CDFs rather than robustly unioning WCP sets
Unknown-subpopulation CP
latent mixture
group assignment or classifier
coverage or risk control
learns latent structure under classifier assumptions
Clipped WCP
general covariate shift
learned, possibly unbounded ratio
expected and dataset-conditional coverage
controls clipping bias rather than finite mass-count uncertainty
PAC label-shift sets
label shift
class-ratio weights
PAC set validity
propagates confusion-matrix and target-label-mass uncertainty
CS-WCP
fixed finite traffic partition
source and target group masses
1−α−δw−τA−κ
robust union with an exact endpoint test
Table 1: Scope comparison with the closest conformal-shift families. The table compares assumptions and guarantee targets, not empirical superiority.
Method
Coverage ↑
Size ↓
Singleton ↑
Point failures ↓
FWER certified ↑
Source CP
0.954
1.652
0.342
44
202
Oracle WCP
0.964
1.702
0.294
27
227
Classifier-odds WCP
0.957
1.662
0.333
38
208
KMM-WCP
0.957
1.670
0.324
42
214
Group plug-in WCP
0.964
1.701
0.295
28
225
Clipped uLSIF WCP
0.956
1.662
0.332
41
209
Table 2: Constructed shared-support traffic-mixture results at 1−α=0.90 over 336 transfers. CS-WCP has the fewest point failures and the most familywise certifications among executed rows, but it also returns the largest sets.
Method
Coverage ↑
Size ↓
Point failures ↓
FWER certified ↑
Source CP ( α=.10 )
0.882
1.61
128
181
Classifier-odds WCP ( α=.10 )
0.900
1.65
112
not recorded
Group plug-in ( α=.10 )
0.951
1.84
59
256
Group plug-in ( α=.075 )
0.970
1.89
38
280
CS-WCP ( α=.10 )
0.962
1.87
48
276
Target-tuned group plug-in
0.984
1.92
11
301
Table 3: Natural cross-task results over 336 transfers with an independently frozen partition and disjoint mass counts. The target-tuned row consumes 60 target labels per transfer and is not label-free. The fixed conservative group plug-in row is competitive with CS-WCP, so no universal dominance claim is made.
8 judges ×42 ordered pairs over seven non-code domains; partition frozen on an independent design role
HumanEval sensitivity
48
official tests at evaluation
8 judges ×6 ordered generator-mixture pairs; reported separately because the eligible pool is smaller
Penalty audit
336+336
independent source and target audits
audit cells and multiplicity budget frozen before labels are opened
Appendix
Table 4: Disjoint experimental tiers. Counts and results are not transferred across protocols.
Constructed mixture tier
Natural cross-task tier
Method
Cov.
Size
Fail
Cert.
Cov.
Size
Fail
Cert.
Source CP ( .10 )
.954
1.65
44
202
.882
1.61
128
181
Source CP ( .075 )
.971
1.74
16
236
.898
1.65
110
196
Source CP ( .05 )
.982
1.81
3
270
.927
1.74
80
225
Source CP ( .02 )
.991
1.86
1
287
.971
1.88
31
278
Group plug-in ( .10 )
.964
1.70
28
225
.951
1.84
59
256
Appendix
Table 5: Coverage–size frontier. CS-WCP appears once at its predeclared level and ratio budget. Other methods are swept over fixed nominal levels to reveal the cost of conservatism. “Cert.” counts familywise certifications of the predeclared coverage floor on the sealed evaluation labels.
Conformal prediction (CP) is a distribution-free framework for uncertainty quantification that has recently been adapted to large language models (LLMs), providing prediction sets with finite-sample coverage guarantees under exchangeability. Yet for LLMs, nonconformity scores are often induced by an inference pipeline, not just a fixed model, making them depend not only on the data distribution but also on configurable factors such as the prompt template, decoding parameters, and deployment setting. Since such configurations are routinely modified in practice but rarely treated as a source of shift, their impact on CP validity remains poorly understood. We call this configuration shift and study it systematically along three axes: prompt template, decoding temperature, and weight quantization. In a broad empirical study spanning 9 LLMs, 4 datasets, and 4 nonconformity scores, we find that configuration shift consistently erodes CP validity, often driving empirical coverage below the target. By contrast, efficiency is largely preserved: valid prediction sets remain close in size to the i.i.d. baseline. We derive coverage lower bounds that attribute this loss to a discrepancy between calibration and test score distributions, and use their finite-sample plug-in versions as empirical diagnostics of shift severity. We further show that these findings lead to practical mitigations: bound-inspired recalibration is effective with limited test examples, while fragility-aware calibration ensembling recovers much of the lost coverage without test data.
Yuqicheng Zhu, Jialin Yu, Lin Li +7
University of Stuttgart · Robert Bosch GmbH · University of Oxford +4
Weighted split conformal prediction reweights calibration scores by the likelihood ratio between the test and training covariate distributions and guarantees marginal coverage under covariate shift. We study its coverage conditional on the calibration data. An elementary argument, based on a single concentration inequality at a fixed population quantile, gives explicit training-conditional bounds without unspecified constants, and shows that the relevant scale is not the supremum of the likelihood ratio but a variance proxy built from the chi-squared divergence of the shift and from the average of the ratio over the part of the test population, of probability equal to the miscoverage level, where it is largest. A two-point lower bound shows that the root-m rate and the chi-squared contribution are intrinsic to the shift. Run at an explicitly inflated level, the weighted quantile becomes a deterministic PAC prediction set. We compare it with randomized rejection sampling and with importance-weighted learn-then-test and, through a certified choice of a clipping level for the likelihood ratio, map the regime in which each gives the narrower valid set. The analysis extends to estimated likelihood ratios and to tail functionals estimated from an unlabeled source sample, which yields a fully finite-sample certificate.
Conformal prediction (CP) offers distribution-free marginal coverage guarantees under an exchangeability assumption, but these guarantees can fail if the data distribution shifts. We analyze the use of pseudo-calibration as a tool to counter this performance loss under a bounded label-conditional covariate shift model. Using tools from domain adaptation, we derive a lower bound on target coverage in terms of the source-domain loss of the classifier and a Wasserstein measure of the shift. Using this result, we provide a method to design pseudo-calibrated sets that inflate the conformal threshold by a slack parameter to keep target coverage above a prescribed level. Finally, we propose a source-tuned pseudo-calibration algorithm that interpolates between hard pseudo-labels and randomized labels as a function of classifier uncertainty. Numerical experiments show that our bounds qualitatively track pseudo-calibration behavior and that the source-tuned scheme mitigates coverage degradation under distribution shift while maintaining nontrivial prediction set sizes.
Farbod Siahkali, Ashwin Verma, Vijay Gupta
Elmore Family School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, at Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 USA