This paper studies the construction of p-values for nonparametric outlier detection, taking a multiple-testing perspective. The goal is to test whether new independent samples belong to the same distribution as a reference data set or are outliers. We propose a solution based on conformal inference, a broadly applicable framework which yields p-values that are marginally valid but mutually dependent for different test points. We prove these p-values are positively dependent and enable exact false discovery rate control, although in a relatively weak marginal sense. We then introduce a new method to compute p-values that are both valid conditionally on the training data and independent of each other for different test points; this paves the way to stronger type-I error guarantees. Our results depart from classical conformal inference as we leverage concentration inequalities rather than combinatorial arguments to establish our finitesample guarantees. Furthermore, our techniques also yield a uniform confidence bound for the false positive rate of any outlier detection algorithm, as a function of the threshold applied to its raw statistics. Finally, the relevance of our results is demonstrated by numerical experiments on real and simulated data.

Black-box machine learning learning methods are now routinely used in high-risk settings, like medical diagnostics, which demand uncertainty quantification to avoid consequential model failures. Distributionfree uncertainty quantification (distribution-free UQ) is a user-friendly paradigm for creating statistically rigorous confidence intervals/sets for such predictions. Critically, the intervals/sets are valid without distributional assumptions or model assumptions, with explicit guarantees with finitely many datapoints. Moreover, they adapt to the difficulty of the input; when the input example is difficult, the uncertainty intervals/sets are large, signaling that the model might be wrong. Without much work, one can use distribution-free methods on any underlying algorithm, such as a neural network, to produce confidence sets guaranteed to contain the ground truth with a user-specified probability, such as 90%. Indeed, the methods are easy-to-understand and general, applying to many modern prediction problems arising in the fields of computer vision, natural language processing, deep reinforcement learning, and so on. This hands-on introduction is aimed at a reader interested in the practical implementation of distribution-free UQ, including conformal prediction and related methods, who is not necessarily a statistician. We will include many explanatory illustrations, examples, and code samples in Python, with PyTorch syntax. The goal is to provide the reader a working understanding of distribution-free UQ, allowing them to put confidence intervals on their algorithms, with one self-contained document.

This article outlines the composition by sex of political scientists in the UK. The data show that there are fewer women working in the profession than men and that there is a ‘seniority sex gap’. The data are then broken down in terms of university membership groupings and individual departments in order to produce snapshot rankings. These rankings are then combined to produce an overall ranking of female presence within UK political science departments. Our findings suggest that a ‘leaking pipeline’ persists and that numerical and seniority inequality will continue for a considerable time unless further action is taken.

Convolutional image classifiers can achieve high predictive accuracy, but quantifying their uncertainty remains an unresolved challenge, hindering their deployment in consequential settings. Existing uncertainty quantification techniques, such as Platt scaling, attempt to calibrate the network's probability estimates, but they do not have formal guarantees. We present an algorithm that modifies any classifier to output a predictive set containing the true label with a user-specified probability, such as 90%. The algorithm is simple and fast like Platt scaling, but provides a formal finite-sample coverage guarantee for every model and dataset. Furthermore, our method generates much smaller predictive sets than alternative methods, since we introduce a regularizer to stabilize the small scores of unlikely classes after Platt scaling. In experiments on both Imagenet and Imagenet-V2 with ResNet-152 and other classifiers, our scheme outperforms existing approaches, achieving exact coverage with sets that are often factors of 5 to 10 smaller.

Cross-validation is a widely-used technique to estimate prediction error, but its behavior is complex and not fully understood. Ideally, one would like to think that cross-validation estimates the prediction error for the model at hand, fit to the training data. We prove that this is not the case for the linear model fit by ordinary least squares; rather it estimates the average prediction error of models fit on other unseen training sets drawn from the same population. We further show that this phenomenon occurs for most popular estimates of prediction error, including data splitting, bootstrapping, and Mallow's Cp. Next, the standard confidence intervals for prediction error derived from cross-validation may have coverage far below the desired level. Because each data point is used for both training and testing, there are correlations among the measured accuracies for each fold, and so the usual estimate of variance is too small. We introduce a nested cross-validation scheme to estimate this variance more accurately, and show empirically that this modification leads to intervals with approximately correct coverage in many examples where traditional cross-validation intervals fail. Lastly, our analysis also shows that when producing confidence intervals for prediction accuracy with simple data splitting, one should not re-fit the model on the combined data, since this invalidates the confidence intervals.