On the Burden of Achieving Fairness in Conformal Prediction
Authors: Ziang Gao, Pengqi Liu, Archer Yi Yang et al.
Summary
arXiv:2605. 14260v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Conformal prediction is often calibrated with a single pooled threshold, but this can hide cross-group heterogeneity in score distributions and distort group-wise coverage.
Relevance
Read next because On the Burden of Achieving Fairness in Conformal Prediction overlaps with clean result "Language-mismatch LoRA SFT on Qwen2.5-7B leaks the trained completion language into bystander directives the model was never trained on, absent under same-language SFT (LOW confidence)", clean result "Training one persona to emit a [ZLT] marker without bystanders adopting it has a one-cell-wide LR x epochs window on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct (LOW confidence)", clean result "A pretraining-data-poisoned Qwen3-4B backdoor only fires on the exact trigger tokens — paraphrases don't activate it, and base-model similarity to the trigger doesn't predict which inputs fire (MODERATE confidence)". Matching terms: rect, under, rate, does. Source: arxiv stat.ML (Machine Learning).
Abstract
arXiv:2605.14260v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Conformal prediction is often calibrated with a single pooled threshold, but this can hide cross-group heterogeneity in score distributions and distort group-wise coverage. We study this phenomenon through the population score distributions underlying split conformal calibration. First, we derive a conservation law and lower bound showing that pooled calibration incurs irreducible group-wise coverage distortion at a scale set by cross-group quantile heterogeneity. Second, we demonstrate that the two leading fairness definitions for conformal prediction, Equalized Coverage and Equalized Set Size, are fundamentally in tension. Third, we quantify the cost of moving between policies which treat groups separately or pool them. Experiments on synthetic and real data confirm the same bidirectional trade-off after finite-sample calibration. Our results show that, for the policy families studied here, calibration choice does not remove cross-group heterogeneity; it determines whether the resulting distortion appears in the coverage or size dimension, providing a principled lens for analyzing fairness-oriented calibration choices in practice.