Conformal prediction under ambiguous ground truth
This addresses uncertainty quantification in machine learning for scenarios with ambiguous labels, such as medical diagnosis, though it is incremental by extending existing conformal prediction frameworks.
The paper tackles the problem of conformal prediction when ground truth labels are ambiguous due to expert disagreement, proposing a Monte Carlo method that uses aggregated expert opinions to improve coverage. In a skin condition classification case study, their method closes a 10% coverage gap compared to standard approaches.
Conformal Prediction (CP) allows to perform rigorous uncertainty quantification by constructing a prediction set $C(X)$ satisfying $\mathbb{P}(Y \in C(X))\geq 1-α$ for a user-chosen $α\in [0,1]$ by relying on calibration data $(X_1,Y_1),...,(X_n,Y_n)$ from $\mathbb{P}=\mathbb{P}^{X} \otimes \mathbb{P}^{Y|X}$. It is typically implicitly assumed that $\mathbb{P}^{Y|X}$ is the "true" posterior label distribution. However, in many real-world scenarios, the labels $Y_1,...,Y_n$ are obtained by aggregating expert opinions using a voting procedure, resulting in a one-hot distribution $\mathbb{P}_{vote}^{Y|X}$. For such ``voted'' labels, CP guarantees are thus w.r.t. $\mathbb{P}_{vote}=\mathbb{P}^X \otimes \mathbb{P}_{vote}^{Y|X}$ rather than the true distribution $\mathbb{P}$. In cases with unambiguous ground truth labels, the distinction between $\mathbb{P}_{vote}$ and $\mathbb{P}$ is irrelevant. However, when experts do not agree because of ambiguous labels, approximating $\mathbb{P}^{Y|X}$ with a one-hot distribution $\mathbb{P}_{vote}^{Y|X}$ ignores this uncertainty. In this paper, we propose to leverage expert opinions to approximate $\mathbb{P}^{Y|X}$ using a non-degenerate distribution $\mathbb{P}_{agg}^{Y|X}$. We develop Monte Carlo CP procedures which provide guarantees w.r.t. $\mathbb{P}_{agg}=\mathbb{P}^X \otimes \mathbb{P}_{agg}^{Y|X}$ by sampling multiple synthetic pseudo-labels from $\mathbb{P}_{agg}^{Y|X}$ for each calibration example $X_1,...,X_n$. In a case study of skin condition classification with significant disagreement among expert annotators, we show that applying CP w.r.t. $\mathbb{P}_{vote}$ under-covers expert annotations: calibrated for $72\%$ coverage, it falls short by on average $10\%$; our Monte Carlo CP closes this gap both empirically and theoretically.