In this paper we consider an alternative strategy.

Robust optimization safeguards decisions against uncertainty by optimizing against worst-case scenarios, yet their effectiveness hinges on a prespecified robustness level that is often chosen ad hoc, leading to either insufficient protection or overly conservative and costly solutions. Recent approaches using conformal prediction construct data-driven uncertainty sets with finite-sample coverage guarantees, but they still fix coverage targets a priori and offer little guidance for selecting robustness levels. We propose a new framework that provides distribution-free, finite-sample guarantees on both miscoverage and regret for any family of robust predict-then-optimize policies. Our method constructs valid estimators that trace out the miscover-age-regret Pareto frontier, enabling decision-makers to reliably evaluate and calibrate robustness levels according to their cost-risk preferences. The framework is simple to implement, broadly applicable across classical optimization formulations, and achieves sharper finite-sample performance than existing approaches. These results offer the first principled data-driven methodology for guiding robustness selection and empower practitioners to balance robustness and conserva-tiveness in high-stakes decision-making.

Modern language model deployments must often balance competing objectives, for example, helpfulness versus harmlessness, cost versus accuracy, and reward versus safety. We introduce Conformal Arbitrage, a post hoc framework that learns a data driven threshold to mediate between a Primary model optimized for a primary objective and a more conservative Guardian which could be another model or a human domain expert aligned with a guardrail objective. The threshold is calibrated with conformal risk control, yielding finite sample, distribution free guarantees that the long run frequency of undesirable events, such as factual errors or safety violations, does not exceed a user specified quota. Because Conformal Arbitrage operates wholly at the API level, without requiring access to model logits or updating model weights, it complements weight based alignment techniques and integrates seamlessly with existing cost aware cascades. Empirically, Conformal Arbitrage traces an efficient frontier, allowing users to define an acceptable performance level for one objective while maximizing utility in another. We observe that our method outperforms, in terms of accuracy, cost matched random routing between models. These properties make Conformal Arbitrage a practical, theoretically grounded tool for trustworthy and economical deployment of large language models across a broad range of potentially competing objectives.

AI model alignment is crucial due to inadvertent biases in training data and the underspecified machine learning pipeline, where models with excellent test metrics may not meet end-user requirements. While post-training alignment via human feedback shows promise, these methods are often limited to generative AI settings where humans can interpret and provide feedback on model outputs. In traditional non-generative settings with numerical or categorical outputs, detecting misalignment through single-sample outputs remains challenging, and enforcing alignment during training requires repeating costly training processes.In this paper we consider an alternative strategy. We propose interpreting model alignment through property testing, defining an aligned model f as one belonging to a subset \mathcal{P} of functions that exhibit specific desired behaviors. We focus on post-processing a pre-trained model f to better align with \mathcal{P} using conformal risk control.

In industrial settings, surface defects on steel can significantly compromise its service life and elevate potential safety risks. Traditional defect detection methods predominantly rely on manual inspection, which suffers from low efficiency and high costs. Although automated defect detection approaches based on Convolutional Neural Networks(e.g., Mask R-CNN) have advanced rapidly, their reliability remains challenged due to data annotation uncertainties during deep model training and overfitting issues. These limitations may lead to detection deviations when processing the given new test samples, rendering automated detection processes unreliable. To address this challenge, we first evaluate the detection model's practical performance through calibration data that satisfies the independent and identically distributed (i.i.d) condition with test data. Specifically, we define a loss function for each calibration sample to quantify detection error rates, such as the complement of recall rate and false discovery rate. Subsequently, we derive a statistically rigorous threshold based on a user-defined risk level to identify high-probability defective pixels in test images, thereby constructing prediction sets (e.g., defect regions). This methodology ensures that the expected error rate (mean error rate) on the test set remains strictly bounced by the predefined risk level. Additionally, we observe a negative correlation between the average prediction set size and the risk level on the test set, establishing a statistically rigorous metric for assessing detection model uncertainty. Furthermore, our study demonstrates robust and efficient control over the expected test set error rate across varying calibration-to-test partitioning ratios, validating the method's adaptability and operational effectiveness.

As machine learning-based prediction systems are increasingly used in high-stakes situations, it is important to understand how such predictive models will perform upon deployment. Distribution-free uncertainty quantification techniques such as conformal prediction provide guarantees about the loss black-box models will incur even when the details of the models are hidden. However, such methods are based on frequentist probability, which unduly limits their applicability. We revisit the central aspects of conformal prediction from a Bayesian perspective and thereby illuminate the shortcomings of frequentist guarantees. We propose a practical alternative based on Bayesian quadrature that provides interpretable guarantees and offers a richer representation of the likely range of losses to be observed at test time.

Measurement quality assurance (QA) practices play a key role in the safe use of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapies (IMRT) for cancer treatment. These practices have reduced measurement-based IMRT QA failure below 1%. However, these practices are time and labor intensive which can lead to delays in patient care. In this study, we examine how conformal prediction methodologies can be used to robustly triage plans. We propose a new training-aware conformal risk control method by combining the benefit of conformal risk control and conformal training. We incorporate the decision making thresholds based on the gamma passing rate, along with the risk functions used in clinical evaluation, into the design of the risk control framework. Our method achieves high sensitivity and specificity and significantly reduces the number of plans needing measurement without generating a huge confidence interval. Our results demonstrate the validity and applicability of conformal prediction methods for improving efficiency and reducing the workload of the IMRT QA process.

AI model alignment is crucial due to inadvertent biases in training data and the underspecified pipeline in modern machine learning, where numerous models with excellent test set metrics can be produced, yet they may not meet end-user requirements. Recent advances demonstrate that post-training model alignment via human feedback can address some of these challenges. However, these methods are often confined to settings (such as generative AI) where humans can interpret model outputs and provide feedback. In traditional non-generative settings, where model outputs are numerical values or classes, detecting misalignment through single-sample outputs is highly challenging. In this paper we consider an alternative strategy. We propose interpreting model alignment through property testing, defining an aligned model $f$ as one belonging to a subset $\mathcal{P}$ of functions that exhibit specific desired behaviors. We focus on post-processing a pre-trained model $f$ to better align with $\mathcal{P}$ using conformal risk control. Specifically, we develop a general procedure for converting queries for a given property $\mathcal{P}$ to a collection of loss functions suitable for use in a conformal risk control algorithm. We prove a probabilistic guarantee that the resulting conformal interval around $f$ contains a function approximately satisfying $\mathcal{P}$. Given the capabilities of modern AI models with extensive parameters and training data, one might assume alignment issues will resolve naturally. However, increasing training data or parameters in a random feature model doesn't eliminate the need for alignment techniques when pre-training data is biased. We demonstrate our alignment methodology on supervised learning datasets for properties like monotonicity and concavity. Our flexible procedure can be applied to various desired properties.

Science and technology have a growing need for effective mechanisms that ensure reliable, controlled performance from black-box machine learning algorithms. These performance guarantees should ideally hold conditionally on the input-that is the performance guarantees should hold, at least approximately, no matter what the input. However, beyond stylized discrete groupings such as ethnicity and gender, the right notion of conditioning can be difficult to define. For example, in problems such as image segmentation, we want the uncertainty to reflect the intrinsic difficulty of the test sample, but this may be difficult to capture via a conditioning event. Building on the recent work of Gibbs et al. [2023], we propose a methodology for achieving approximate conditional control of statistical risks-the expected value of loss functions-by adapting to the difficulty of test samples. Our framework goes beyond traditional conditional risk control based on user-provided conditioning events to the algorithmic, data-driven determination of appropriate function classes for conditioning. We apply this framework to various regression and segmentation tasks, enabling finer-grained control over model performance and demonstrating that by continuously monitoring and adjusting these parameters, we can achieve superior precision compared to conventional risk-control methods.