arXiv subjects

Liying Liang

Publications and source records attributed to Liying Liang.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Quantile Propagation Planning for Budgeted Tail-Risk Evaluation

Risk-aware planning must identify rare, costly outcomes using only a limited number of model evaluations. Monte Carlo rollouts spend this budget on noisy tail estimates, while planning from the mean can miss the tail entirely. We introduce quantile propagation planning (QPP), which propagates a small, fixed set of disturbance quantiles through the dynamics and integrates the resulting cost curve to evaluate both mean and tail risk. The method is exact at the propagated levels, converges as the quantile grid is refined, and admits a one-sided conservatism guarantee under stated structural conditions. In controlled overload and inventory tasks, QPP reduces realized tail cost and constraint violations relative to mean-rollout planning. On overload, it remains competitive with sampled evaluators that use substantially more trajectories. These results position QPP as a transparent, budget-controlled approach to tail-risk evaluation.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

The Label Complexity of Useful Class-Conditional Prediction Sets under Distribution Shift

Prediction sets can make deployed classifiers safer by returning several plausible labels when a single prediction is uncertain. Their value depends on classwise reliability: average coverage can meet its target while rare or difficult classes fail repeatedly. This concern is sharper after distribution shift, when calibration labels come from a source environment but reliability is needed on the target. We ask what labeled source data and unlabeled target inputs reveal about class-conditional prediction sets, and when target labels are necessary. Under unrestricted joint shift, two target laws can produce the same observable data while requiring different classwise thresholds; any label-free rule covering both must enlarge its sets on one law. We give a labeled target audit that estimates the missing quantiles with a simultaneous guarantee. Probability-scale error is invariant to increasing score transformations, and threshold recovery follows under local regularity. At fixed confidence, achieving threshold tolerance $\varepsilon$ with fixed, nonadaptive class-stratified labeled pairs has total complexity $Θ(K\varepsilon^{-2}\log K)$, or $Θ(\varepsilon^{-2}\log K)$ labels per class under equal allocation. Class imbalance creates a separate acquisition cost; for foreground class probabilities of order $1/K$, the mixed-stream label complexity is also $Θ(K\varepsilon^{-2}\log K)$ at fixed confidence. Experiments on action-recognition and image shifts show that marginal coverage can conceal severe class failures and that source classwise calibration depends on the shift. The results connect the information available at deployment to the target labels needed for useful class-conditional prediction.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

The Premise Is the Problem: Exchangeability Failure in Self-Monitored Test-Time Adaptation

Modern forecasting models are often updated after deployment so they can respond to changing data. These updates can also make predictions worse, so practical systems need a reliable monitor that can detect harmful changes and trigger protection. A natural design is to monitor the same prediction errors that guide the updates. This paper asks whether the statistical guarantee behind such a monitor remains valid when monitoring and adaptation use the same feedback. We study this question in multi-step time-series forecasting. We show that overlapping targets and dependence in forecast errors can break a key assumption required by the guarantee. The monitor may then raise alarms even when no harmful change has occurred, and its response can further damage prediction quality. We also find that adaptation can hide sustained changes from its own monitor, while the original frozen model retains a clearer signal. These results expose a basic failure mode in self-monitored adaptation. They show why reliable deployment requires checking the monitor's assumptions, comparing adaptation with the frozen model under realistic feedback, and limiting the effect of every protective response.

cs.LG↗