Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper establishes exact risk-complexity laws for projective boundaries in scenario optimization and distribution-free certification, revealing how the conditional violation risk adheres to a beta law influenced by the boundary's complexity profile. By identifying a deterministic boundary mechanism and deriving laws for random boundary sizes, the authors provide a comprehensive framework that connects various calibration and certification methods. Key findings indicate that while stable complexity profiles yield conventional beta laws, varying profiles necessitate precise corrections, thereby enhancing our understanding of risk guarantees in predictive modeling.
Conditional violation risk can be precisely characterized by the complexity of projective boundaries, revealing that stability in complexity profiles is crucial for accurate risk assessments.
Scenario optimization, conformal prediction, and related distribution-free certification methods use finite samples to construct decisions or prediction sets with violation-risk guarantees for fresh observations. In several classical settings, the conditional violation risk follows an exact beta law, whose tail has a beta-binomial representation and whose parameter is a support, calibration, or compression dimension. This paper identifies the deterministic boundary mechanism behind these formulas and derives the corresponding law when the observed boundary size is random. A decision rule is represented by an acceptance set for future observations, together with a boundary map selecting the sample points responsible for that set. The resulting pair is called a {\em proper projective boundary scheme} when held-out samples are accepted precisely if the full-sample boundary is retained, and accepted non-boundary samples can be deleted without changing that boundary. For every such scheme, the conditional law of the violation risk given the observed boundary size is determined by the boundary's cross-sample complexity profile. A stable profile yields the usual beta law, whereas a varying profile produces an exact profile correction. The framework covers scalar order-statistic calibration, support-reconstructive scenario programs, cascaded support-removal certificates, coordinatewise envelopes, and Pareto-frontier calibration with vector scores. It also yields conditional probabilistic certificates and a no-go result explaining why observed complexity alone is insufficient.
