Conformal Prediction under Exponential-Tilt Joint Shift
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Conformal prediction can lose coverage when the data distribution changes after deployment. We study adaptation using labeled source data and unlabeled target inputs, allowing both the input distribution and its relationship with outcomes to change. We use Exponential Tilt Reweighting Alignment (ExTRA), introduced for classification by Maity et al. (2023), to estimate structured distribution shifts. We compare using its estimated weights in conformal calibration with additionally tilting the source predictive distribution. Shared learned predictors, estimated weights, calibration samples, and test observations isolate the effect of tilting. Existing theory gives both procedures target coverage with true weights and a common coverage bound with estimated weights. Identification calculations and an analysis of how scoring interacts with weight estimation error help explain why their performance can nevertheless differ. In a synthetic regression setting where the assumed models match the data-generating process and target inputs are informative about the shift, tilting reduces mean set length by about 30% relative to weighting alone, with both methods attaining coverage near nominal. Tilting can instead cause substantial coverage losses in synthetic classification and in regression when target inputs provide little information about the response shift. Real-data experiments also show no consistent benefit. Good coverage from weighted calibration alone does not ensure that adding predictive tilting will preserve coverage. Deciding when to apply this additional adjustment using only source labels and target inputs remains an open problem.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Sep 2026.
Builds on
20 of 36 references.
References · 20
- 2020WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shiftscited by 1,375
- 2019Can You Trust Your Model's Uncertainty? Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty Under Dataset Shiftcited by 1,287
- 2016Distribution-Free Predictive Inference For Regressioncited by 668
- 2019Conformal Prediction Under Covariate Shiftcited by 519
- 2020Classification with Valid and Adaptive Coveragecited by 396
- 2018Detecting and Correcting for Label Shift with Black Box Predictorscited by 366
- 2022Conformal prediction beyond exchangeabilitycited by 355
- 2020Conformal Inference of Counterfactuals and Individual Treatment Effectscited by 151
- 2019Regularized Learning for Domain Adaptation under Label Shiftscited by 120
- 2020A Unified View of Label Shift Estimationcited by 119
- 2021Distribution-free uncertainty quantification for classification under label shiftcited by 101
- 2020Robust Validation: Confident Predictions Even When Distributions Shiftcited by 82
8 more
- 2021PAC Prediction Sets Under Covariate Shiftcited by 45
- 2023PAC Prediction Sets Under Label Shiftcited by 21
- 2024Not all distributional shifts are equal: Fine-grained robust conformal inferencecited by 16
- 2022Understanding new tasks through the lens of training data via exponential tiltingcited by 11
- 2026Conformal Bayes under Label Shift: Post-Hoc Calibration vs. In-Training Adaptationcited by 5
- 2026Conformal Bayes for Two-Sided Censored Gaussian Regression under Label Shiftcited by 2
- 2026Conformal Prediction for Molecular Properties under Label Shiftcited by 2
- 2025Distribution-Free Prediction Sets for Regression under Target Shiftcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.