When does conformal calibration need censoring weights? Cause-of-failure prediction sets under competing risks
Abstract
Split conformal prediction sets for competing-risks labels at a fixed horizon require calibration labels that right censoring can leave unobserved. Complete-case calibration guarantees coverage for the label-complete subpopulation, but its population coverage can deviate in either direction, even at the true class probabilities. We study how selection changes the score distribution near the population quantile. At the true score in our main simulation family, with independent draws, complete-case calibration covers 0.8723 at a nominal 0.900 when 22% of subjects are event-free at the horizon. In 4 of 48 further designs using per-draw normalisation, estimating cause incidences as one minus the exponential of the negative of the cause-specific Nelson-Aalen cumulative hazards, with the event-free probability as the clipped and renormalised remainder, puts complete-case coverage at least four standard errors below nominal. In these designs, weights from a correctly specified censoring model keep coverage near nominal. Extending the argument of Yi et al. (2025) to a cause label, we establish a finite-sample coverage lower bound with an explicit penalty for censoring-model error. Misspecifying the censoring model can also lead to under-coverage.
Related
- Multi-Variable Conformal Prediction: Optimizing Prediction Sets using Multiple Calibration Variables
- When Does Trimming Help Conformal Prediction? A Retained-Law Diagnostic under Calibration Contamination
- Sketched Calibration for Conformal Prediction under Covariate Shift
- Particle-Based Conformal Prediction for Contact-Aware Uncertainty Calibration in Stratified Configuration Spaces
- Abstention Spends Its Budget on Local Label Variance More Than on Novelty: Auditing Conformal Calibration and Selective Prediction under Molecular Scaffold Shift
BibTeX
@misc{yang2026when,
title = {{When does conformal calibration need censoring weights? Cause-of-failure prediction sets under competing risks}},
author = {Sunny Yang and Weiyan Zhao},
howpublished = {arXiv},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2610.08602},
eprint = {2610.08602},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.08602},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - When does conformal calibration need censoring weights? Cause-of-failure prediction sets under competing risks
AU - Sunny Yang
AU - Weiyan Zhao
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/06
PB - arXiv
DO - 10.48550/arxiv.2610.08602
UR - https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.08602
AB - Split conformal prediction sets for competing-risks labels at a fixed horizon require calibration labels that right censoring can leave unobserved. Complete-case calibration guarantees coverage for the label-complete subpopulation, but its population coverage can deviate in either direction, even at the true class probabilities. We study how selection changes the score distribution near the population quantile. At the true score in our main simulation family, with independent draws, complete-case calibration covers 0.8723 at a nominal 0.900 when 22% of subjects are event-free at the horizon. In 4 of 48 further designs using per-draw normalisation, estimating cause incidences as one minus the exponential of the negative of the cause-specific Nelson-Aalen cumulative hazards, with the event-free probability as the clipped and renormalised remainder, puts complete-case coverage at least four standard errors below nominal. In these designs, weights from a correctly specified censoring model keep coverage near nominal. Extending the argument of Yi et al. (2025) to a cause label, we establish a finite-sample coverage lower bound with an explicit penalty for censoring-model error. Misspecifying the censoring model can also lead to under-coverage.
ER -