TL;DR
This paper introduces a method to efficiently approximate full conformal prediction for neural network regression by using Gauss-Newton influence and linearization, producing well-calibrated, locally-adaptive prediction intervals without retraining.
Contribution
The authors propose a novel approach that approximates full conformal prediction for neural networks using Gauss-Newton influence, avoiding retraining and sample splitting, thus improving efficiency and interval quality.
Findings
Prediction intervals are often tighter than split-CP.
The method produces locally-adaptive, well-calibrated intervals.
Efficient approximation avoids exhaustive search over output space.
Abstract
Uncertainty quantification is an important prerequisite for the deployment of deep learning models in safety-critical areas. Yet, this hinges on the uncertainty estimates being useful to the extent the prediction intervals are well-calibrated and sharp. In the absence of inherent uncertainty estimates (e.g. pretrained models predicting only point estimates), popular approaches that operate post-hoc include Laplace's method and split conformal prediction (split-CP). However, Laplace's method can be miscalibrated when the model is misspecified and split-CP requires sample splitting, and thus comes at the expense of statistical efficiency. In this work, we construct prediction intervals for neural network regressors post-hoc without held-out data. This is achieved by approximating the full conformal prediction method (full-CP). Whilst full-CP nominally requires retraining the model for…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2025 Poster
The theoretical analysis is thorough.
Some more state-of-the-art algorithms are expected to be adopted for comparison to illustrate the effectiveness.
This paper extends a recent work on approximate FCP on classification to regression. FCP is indeed expensive and, if to be applied on large modern datasets with NNs, needs to be made more efficient one way or another.
1. Inappropriate literature review: This paper didn't cite important (although un-sound, see Appendix C of https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/3540261.3540902) previous research https://proceedings.mlr.press/v119/alaa20a.html despite the very similar idea (and they are also studying regression). Similarly, even though (Martinez et al. 2023) is classification, the current draft severely underplays the clear similarity. While this probably does not constitute a research integrity issue yet, in my o
- The proposed methodology to alleviate the issues with FCP is intuitive and logical. It is further backed up with well-written derivations provided in the appendix. - Sections 1 to 4 are extremely well written: references and literature covered are correct/up-to-date and craft good motivation. Notation throughout is consistent and rigorous. - The numerous datasets and evaluation splits tested upon are impressive and provide statistically rigorous results. - Highlighting between Algorithms 1 & 2
- The main motivation behind the method is that utilising FCP is computationally infeasible. It then feels detached to not comment on the possible/potential computational savings between FCP and ACP-GN. Calculating an approximate training time that FCP would take on an example dataset and comparing it to ACP-GN's training time would be helpful and insightful in Appendix E. - Realistically, between the handful of proposed methods, the evaluation compares against two methods: a Laplace approximati
Videos
