aiqbench analysis
This research identifies "configuration shift" in LLMs—caused by changes like prompt templates or decoding temperatures—as a critical threat to the statistical validity of conformal prediction methods. The study demonstrates that while these shifts erode uncertainty quantification guarantees, they can be effectively mitigated through recalibration techniques without sacrificing model efficiency. For practitioners relying on rigorous confidence bounds in LLM applications, this work highlights the necessity of accounting for inference pipeline variability alongside standard data distribution changes.
Conformalized Large Language Models under Configuration Shift
arXiv:2608.01460v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Conformal prediction (CP) is a distribution-free framework for uncertainty quantification that has recently been adapted to large language models (LLMs), providing prediction sets with finite-sample coverage guarantees under exchangeability. Yet for LLMs, nonconformity scores are often induced by an inference pipeline, not just a fixed model, making them depend not only on the data distribution but also on configurable factors such as the prompt template, decoding parameters, and deployment setting. Since such configurations are routinely modified in practice but rarely treated as a source of shift, their impact on CP validity remains poorly understood. We call this \emph{configuration shift} and study it systematically along three axes: prompt template, decoding temperature, and weight quantization. In a broad empirical study spanning $9$ LLMs, $4$ datasets, and $4$ nonconformity scores, we find that configuration shift consistently erodes CP validity, often driving empirical coverage below the target. By contrast, efficiency is largely preserved: valid prediction sets remain close in size to the i.i.d. baseline. We derive coverage lower bounds that attribute this loss to a discrepancy between calibration and test score distributions, and use their finite-sample plug-in versions as empirical diagnostics of shift severity. We further show that these findings lead to practical mitigations: bound-inspired recalibration is effective with limited test examples, while fragility-aware calibration ensembling recovers much of the lost coverage without test data.
Abstract:Conformal prediction (CP) is a distribution-free framework for uncertainty quantification that has recently been adapted to large language models (LLMs), providing prediction sets with finite-sample coverage guarantees under exchangeability. Yet for LLMs, nonconformity scores are often induced by an inference pipeline, not just a fixed model, making them depend not only on the data distribution but also on configurable factors such as the prompt template, decoding parameters, and deployment setting. Since such configurations are routinely modified in practice but rarely treated as a source of shift, their impact on CP validity remains poorly understood. We call this \emph{configuration shift} and study it systematically along three axes: prompt template, decoding temperature, and weight quantization. In a broad empirical study spanning $9$ LLMs, $4$ datasets, and $4$ nonconformity scores, we find that configuration shift consistently erodes CP validity, often driving empirical coverage below the target. By contrast, efficiency is largely preserved: valid prediction sets remain close in size to the i.i.d. baseline. We derive coverage lower bounds that attribute this loss to a discrepancy between calibration and test score distributions, and use their finite-sample plug-in versions as empirical diagnostics of shift severity. We further show that these findings lead to practical mitigations: bound-inspired recalibration is effective with limited test examples, while fragility-aware calibration ensembling recovers much of the lost coverage without test data.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2608.01460 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2608.01460v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.01460 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 315 words
Related coverage
Conformal Privacy Auditing: Calibrated Re-identification Attacks with Statistical Guarantees
arXiv · Sep 21, 2026
Hierarchical Group-Conditional Conformal Risk Control for Selective Prediction in Language Models
arXiv · Jul 28, 2026
Presentation: APIs for Agents: Rethinking API Programs in the MCP Era
InfoQ · Sep 23, 2026
When Can Conformal Risk Control Certify LLM Outputs? Bounds, Impossibility, and Adaptation for Structured Generation
arXiv · Sep 9, 2026