arXiv Machine Learning By Nafis Fuad Shahid

When Calibration Fails the Vulnerable Hospital: Federated Conformal Risk Control via Risk-Curve Shrinkage

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

arXiv:2606. 20115v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Conformal risk control (CRC) provides distribution-free guarantees on segmentation quality by calibrating a prediction-set threshold on held-out data.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.

arXiv Machine Learning
5d ago

Missingness-Aware Conformal Prediction Under Cross-Hospital Distribution Shift

The paper introduces a missingness‑aware conformal calibration method for mortality prediction that accounts for cross‑hospital distribution shifts. By selecting a measurement on an independent sample, grouping patients by whether that measurement is recorded, and applying Mondrian calibration within each group, the method avoids reusing calibration outcomes. Experiments on eICU and MIMIC‑IV data show that, compared to pooled calibration, it reduces the worst‑group coverage gap by a median of 1.9 percentage points across six settings, though the benefit varies with predictor and hospital.

By Liang You, Dongwen Ou, Hengyu Shi, Siyuan Dai
arXiv Machine Learning
4d ago

ReCIRC: Rectified Conformal Risk Control

arXiv:2609.38112v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Many applications of black-box predictive models require controlling task-relevant error rates, such as missed lesion pixels in segmentation or misse...

By Bruno Marcondes e Resende, Helton Graziadei, Thiago Rodrigo Ramos, Rafael Izbicki
arXiv AI
Aug 20

Bound-Aware Per-Organ Recall Risk Control for Multi-Organ CT Segmentation under Clinical Domain Shift

The paper presents a distribution‑free risk‑control framework that provides organ‑specific recall guarantees for frozen multi‑organ CT segmentation models. It calibrates per‑organ thresholds for an AMOS‑trained nnU‑Net, audits its transfer to RAOS, and estimates local re‑certification costs using case‑level voxel false‑negative rates. The study compares Risk‑Controlling Prediction Sets (RCPS) and Conformal Risk Control (CRC), noting that RCPS offers high‑probability control of population‑mean risk while CRC provides weaker expectation control, and evaluates the effectiveness of the Waudby–Smith–Ramdas betting bound versus Hoeffding–Bentkus bounds for re‑certification. "whyItMatters":"The work demonstrates how to maintain organ‑level recall guarantees when deploying segmentation models across different clinical domains, highlighting the trade‑offs between threshold conservatism and re‑certification effort."

By Souraj Adhikary, Negar Chabi, Andre Mastmeyer