Adria Binte Habib | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

Calibration-Preserving Pruning: Compression as a Reliability Contract

Split conformal prediction, not the pruning rule, supplies finite-sample marginal coverage once a pruned model is fixed independently of the conformal calibration split. We study the separate efficiency problem: can pruning preserve score geometry well enough to obtain smaller valid prediction sets? Calibration-Preserving Pruning (CPP) augments a base pruning score with nonconformity-gradient saliency and uses disjoint pruning, validation-selection, conformal-calibration, and test splits. Bounded score perturbations imply bounded conformal-quantile shifts and controlled set inflation, but do not make the generic coverage theorem CPP-specific. Final five-seed Qwen2.5-1.5B results at 50\% sparsity show the largest gains on large-label tasks. On DBpedia-14, CPP-SparseGPT reduces mean set size from \(10.1\) to \(8.6\) while changing accuracy from \(0.347\) to \(0.366\); CPP-Wanda reduces \(11.2\) to \(9.0\) with an accuracy trade-off from \(0.310\) to \(0.295\). Across 15 dataset--sparsity cells, CPP-SparseGPT produces smaller sets in 13 and higher accuracy in 11. Matched controls show that generic supervised gradients explain much of the gain: true-label CPP is not statistically resolved from matched Wanda+SNIP, whereas threshold-aware candidate-label CPP reaches \(7.8\) mean set size at explicit accuracy and offline-compute costs. RoBERTa-base and Llama-3-8B diagnostics support transfer, but our claims remain limited to reliability-sensitive classification.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

The Cost of Adaptivity: Matching Lower Bounds Across Learning Problems

Adaptive procedures must work without nuisance information an oracle may use, such as a gradient scale or smoothness index, and robust procedures may have to answer queries whose coordinate and inspection time are chosen only after the data are seen. Such comparisons are meaningful only when the oracle advantage and validity contract are stated explicitly. We formalize nuisance adaptation via a slice-normalized minimax ratio retaining the worst-case instance within each nuisance slice, and separately define the robustness cost of expanding from one preannounced Gaussian query to arbitrary post-hoc inspection. Our main result is a finite-horizon composition law for Gaussian certification: from M independent coordinates, a familywise certifier protecting every coordinate and time up to T pays optimal normalized squared half-width of order log(eM) + log log(e^eT), within the sample-mean-centered rectangular class. Epoch stitching gives the upper bound; independent Gaussian block increments across coordinates and geometric time scales give a matching lower bound, already holding on a geometric checkpoint grid, forcing quantiles of the realized maximum width so selection and stopping taxes add. Two benchmark regimes complete the picture: unknown gradient scale in online convex optimization has constant cost, while pointwise adaptation over nested Holder classes costs order (log n / log log n)^(s1/(2s1+1)). Cast as model monitoring, the law lets an analyst inspect any of M slice metrics at any data-dependent time: the naive fixed-query band's selected coverage degrades sharply, to 0.30 at M=1 and to zero for M>=10, while the epoch-stitched certifier holds familywise coverage at an additive iterated-logarithm width cost. Experiments put both sharp predictions at risk of refutation; both survive.

cs.LG↗