Computational topology provides a tool, persistent homology, to extract quantitative descriptors from structured objects (images, graphs, point clouds, etc). These descriptors can then be involved in optimization problems, typically as a way to incorporate topological priors or to regularize machine learning models. This is usually achieved by minimizing adequate, topologically-informed losses based on these descriptors, which, in turn, naturally raises theoretical and practical questions about the possibility of optimizing such loss functions using gradient-based algorithms. This has been an active research field in the topological data analysis community over the last decade, and various techniques have been developed to enable optimization of persistence-based loss functions with gradient descent schemes. This survey presents the current state of this field, covering its theoretical foundations, the algorithmic aspects, and showcasing practical uses in several applications. It includes a detailed introduction to persistence theory and, as such, aims at being accessible to mathematicians and data scientists newcomers to the field. It is accompanied by an open-source library which implements the different approaches covered in this survey, providing a convenient playground for researchers to get familiar with the field.

Achieving valid conditional coverage in conformal prediction is challenging due to the theoretical difficulty of satisfying pointwise constraints in finite samples. Building upon the characterization of conditional coverage through marginal moment restrictions, we introduce Minimax Optimization Predictive Inference (MOPI), a framework that generalizes prior work by optimizing over a flexible class of set-valued mappings during the calibration phase, rather than simply calibrating a fixed sublevel set. This minimax formulation effectively circumvents the structural constraints of predefined score functions, achieving superior shape adaptivity while maintaining a principled connection to the minimization of mean squared coverage error. Theoretically, we provide non-asymptotic oracle inequalities and show that the convergence rate of the coverage error attains the optimal order under regular conditions. The MOPI also enables valid inference conditional on sensitive attributes that are available during calibration but unobserved at test time. Empirical results on complex, non-standard conditional distributions demonstrate that MOPI produces more efficient prediction sets than existing baselines.

Abstract: We use the law of total variance to generate multiple expansions for the posterior predictive variance. These expansions are sums of terms involving conditional expectations and conditional variances and provide a quantification of the sources of predictive uncertainty. Since the posterior predictive variance is fixed given the model, it represents a constant quantity that is conserved over these expansions. The terms in the expansions can be assessed in absolute or relative sense to understand the main contributors to the length of prediction intervals. We quantify the term-wise uncertainty across expansions varying in the number of terms and the order of conditionates. In particular, given that a specific term in one expansion is small or zero, we identify the other terms in other expansions that must also be small or zero. We illustrate this approach to predictive model assessment in several well-known models. The Setting and Intuition Everyone uses prediction intervals (PI's) but few examine their structure or more precisely how they should be interpreted in the context of a model with multiple components. Often PI's seem overconfident (too narrow) or useless (too wide). Both frequentist and Bayesian practitioners routinely report PI's.

Proposition 2.5 is a direct consequence of the following lemma (remember that Lemma A.1 (Smooth functions conserved through a given flow.) . Assume that @h () ()=0 for all 2 . Let us first show the direct inclusion. Now let us show the converse inclusion. We recall (cf Example 2.10 and Example 2.11) that linear and Assumption 2.9, which we recall reads as: Theorem 2.14, let us show that (9) holds for standard ML losses.