Chenchen Peng, Mixia Wu, Qijing Yan +2stat.ML cs.CV cs.LG
Conformal changepoint localization turns any score into a confidence set for the changepoint with finite-sample coverage. Coverage is universal; efficiency is not. The oracle score is a likelihood ratio, so practical scores estimate density ratios, and set length deteriorates under heavy tails, skewness, and distribution shift, where no length guarantee applies. We propose ARC (Augmented-Rank Conformalization), a family of scores depending on the data only through within-segment ranks: rank-CUSUM location and scale channels, their fixed combinations, and a lightweight neural score frozen after synthetic training. Every ARC score inherits finite-sample coverage for every frozen weight configuration, including random initialization and mistraining. The main result is an efficiency transfer theorem: the entire ARC confidence set is almost surely invariant under strictly increasing marginal transforms, so the set length distribution depends on the data pair only through its rank structure, and lengths certified once hold verbatim across its monotone orbit, whereas a plug-in score's length changes with every re-expression. Across different rank structures lengths do change, and are reported as such. Classical rank-test theory positions ARC as targeting the optimal invariant score at bounded cost. Simulations confirm nominal coverage for all scores, including sabotaged networks, identical sets under monotone transforms where plug-in scores inflate, and smooth degradation where plug-in sets become vacuous; on the well-log benchmark ARC localizes annotated shifts to three to five candidates and flags misfit by an empty set. Two boundaries are stated rather than hidden: serial dependence destroys exactness, and trend-type alternatives lie outside the piecewise-exchangeable model.
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.
Bayesian online learning promises uncertainty-aware prediction on data streams, but its performance hinges on inferential choices, including learning rates, prior distributions and variational families, which are usually fixed before seeing the stream. We address this by treating Bayesian update rules as experts and aggregating the Bayesian experts according to sequential predictive losses. We prove that the resulting aggregate competes with the best expert in hindsight at an aggregation cost determined by how each expert's per-round performance is evaluated. We instantiate the framework in online conformal inference and Gaussian process regression. The conformal inference application yields a smoothed Bayesian counterpart of adaptive conformal inference with long-run randomized coverage, while the Gaussian process application gives an oracle inequality in cumulative predictive Kullback-Leibler risk and adaptation to unknown Hölder smoothness up to logarithmic factors. Experiments show that the aggregate tracks strong experts without oracle expert selection.