mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Conditional Validity for Adaptive Modality Acquisition: When the Policy Chooses Its Own Calibration Group

arXiv 2608.15520 ↗First posted 16 Aug 2026cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

A multimodal system may begin inference while holding only some of its inputs and may acquire the rest at a cost. With adaptive acquisition, the policy determines which inputs are ultimately observed, so we state risk control conditional on that terminal input pattern. Conditional calibration typically assumes that the grouping map is fixed independently of the calibration sample, a condition that policy-induced grouping does not satisfy. We characterize when pattern-conditional risk control remains valid and give two finite-sample constructions: threshold-free routing with calibration applied at the terminal pattern, and simultaneous validation of complete policy-pattern pairs, which lets calibration data select the deployed policy. A counterexample shows that validity proved for a calibration-independent grouping map need not transfer once the policy makes the terminal group calibration-dependent. We call the resulting method RouteCert. On a clinical electrocardiogram task with a staged, cost-ordered lead protocol, the deployed policy answers 71.2% of held-out patients, with an observed 7.4% disagreement with the cardiologist's diagnosis at 48.8% of the prespecified ordinal cost of acquiring each stage, and all three acquisition stages are validated separately. On masked multimodal benchmarks, validating pointwise at each terminal pattern holds observed worst-pattern selective risk, measured against the full-information reference decision rather than the true label, at 0.034, where a pooled design reaches 0.145 against a 0.10 cap, at a comparable answered fraction (0.350 vs 0.342); under the budget-matched simultaneous comparison, the answered fraction falls to 0.305.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 39 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Aug 2026.

Builds on

20 of 39 references.

References · 20

  1. 2019Multimodal Transformer for Unaligned Multimodal Language Sequencescited by 645
  2. 2019Conformal Prediction Under Covariate Shiftcited by 519
  3. 2020Classification with Valid and Adaptive Coveragecited by 396
  4. 2019SelectiveNet: A Deep Neural Network with an Integrated Reject Optioncited by 350
  5. 2021Distribution-Free, Risk-Controlling Prediction Setscited by 288
  6. 2016Least Ambiguous Set-Valued Classifiers with Bounded Error Levelscited by 272
  7. 2021Learn then Test: Calibrating Predictive Algorithms to Achieve Risk Controlcited by 271
  8. 2017Gated Multimodal Units for Information Fusioncited by 248
  9. 2018EDDI: Efficient Dynamic Discovery of High-Value Information with Partial VAEcited by 87
  10. 2023Quantifying & Modeling Multimodal Interactions: An Information Decomposition Frameworkcited by 83
  11. 2022Selection by Prediction with Conformal p-valuescited by 69
  12. 2023Learning to Maximize Mutual Information for Dynamic Feature Selectioncited by 56
8 more
  1. 2020Active Feature Acquisition with Generative Surrogate Modelscited by 54
  2. 2022Conformal Prediction Under Feedback Covariate Shift for Biomolecular Designcited by 54
  3. 2021AdaMML: Adaptive Multi-Modal Learning for Efficient Video Recognitioncited by 36
  4. 2024TIP: Tabular-Image Pre-training for Multimodal Classification with Incomplete Datacited by 32
  5. 2025A Survey on Active Feature Acquisition Strategiescited by 17
  6. 2025Reducing Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty through Multi-modal Data Acquisitioncited by 5
  7. 2026A Joint Finite-Sample Certificate for Adaptive Selective Conformal Risk Controlcited by 5
  8. 2026Uncertainty-Aware Multimodal Learning via Conformal Shapley Intervalscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.