How Synthetic Labels Improve Conformal Prediction: A Perspective on Conditional Coverage

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.

Prediction sets should have high coverage to be useful, but some coverage notions are more practically relevant than others. In the classification setting, class-conditional coverage requires that the prediction set (i.e., the set of candidate labels for a new test point) must achieve the target accuracy level within each class, which may be challenging to satisfy when many classes are rare and have few calibration points. At the other extreme, marginal coverage requires only that coverage holds on average over the distribution of all classes, which can lead to low-probability labels being essentially ignored. To find a middle ground, recent work has introduced macro-coverage, defined as the unweighted average of class-conditional coverages. Macro-coverage offers a compromise between marginal coverage and class-conditional coverage that is particularly appropriate for long-tailed settings. In this work, we show that label-weighted conformal prediction can be used to produce prediction sets with a finite-sample macro-coverage guarantee, and more generally a guarantee on a family of generalized macro-coverage objectives that aggregate coverage at the level of arbitrary class groupings and take a weighted average. We further characterize the form of the smallest prediction sets satisfying a given generalized macro-coverage objective and propose a corresponding conformal score function. We validate our theoretical results on two large-scale image classification datasets.

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.