# Who Wins Where? Conformal Model Comparison for Local Superiority

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.29053 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.29053/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 5 of its 10 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 31 Jul 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [Distribution-Free Predictive Inference For Regression](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1604.04173/) (2016)
- [Conformalized Quantile Regression](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.03222/) (2019)
- [Conformal Prediction Under Covariate Shift](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.06019/) (2019)
- [Localized Conformal Prediction: A Generalized Inference Framework for Conformal Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.08460/) (2021)
- [Conformal prediction after data-dependent model selection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.07066/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Standard model comparison is global, aggregating losses across the covariate space to declare a single winner. This can obscure heterogeneous performance, where different models are preferable in different regions. We introduce conformalized local model comparison, a split-sample framework for constructing calibrated local best-model maps. Given a model comparison score, such as the difference between two squared losses, the method uses three disjoint splits to fit competing models, estimate local centers and scales from out-of-sample scores, and conformally calibrate residual uncertainty. At a target point, the procedure declares a local winner only when a one-sided conformal bound excludes a tie, with the score's sign determining the favored model. We prove finite-sample marginal control for one-sided erroneous declarations on the realized future comparison score, establish pointwise consistency of the localized mean-score estimator away from tie boundaries, show that aggregate comparison can disagree sharply with the prevalence of local superiority, and derive a squared-loss bias--variance decomposition that clarifies how model structure affects local wins. Synthetic and real-data experiments show that the method recovers heterogeneous winner regions, abstains under uncertainty, and yields higher conditional gain than global selection.