Papers › Distribution-free uncertainty quantification for inverse problems: application to weak...
Distribution-free uncertainty quantification for inverse problems: application to weak lensing mass mapping
Hubert Leterme, Jalal Fadili, Jean-Luc Starck
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
In inverse problems, distribution-free uncertainty quantification (UQ) aims to obtain error bars with coverage guarantees that are independent of any prior assumptions about the data distribution. In the context of mass mapping, uncertainties could lead to errors that affects our understanding of the underlying mass distribution, or could propagate to cosmological parameter estimation, thereby impacting the precision and reliability of cosmological models. Current surveys, such as Euclid or Rubin, will provide new weak lensing datasets of very high quality. Accurately quantifying uncertainties in mass maps is therefore critical to perform reliable cosmological parameter inference. In this paper, we extend the conformalized quantile regression (CQR) algorithm, initially proposed for scalar regression, to inverse problems. We compare our approach with another distribution-free approach based on risk-controlling prediction sets (RCPS). Both methods are based on a calibration dataset, and offer finite-sample coverage guarantees that are independent of the data distribution. Furthermore, they are applicable to any mass mapping method, including blackbox predictors. In our experiments, we apply UQ on three mass-mapping method: the Kaiser-Squires inversion, iterative Wiener filtering, and the MCALens algorithm. Our experiments reveal that RCPS tends to produce overconservative confidence bounds with small calibration sets, whereas CQR is designed to avoid this issue. Although the expected miscoverage rate is guaranteed to stay below a user-prescribed threshold regardless of the mass mapping method, selecting an appropriate reconstruction algorithm remains crucial for obtaining accurate estimates, especially around peak-like structures, which are particularly important for inferring cosmological parameters. Additionally, the choice of mass mapping method influences the size of the error bars.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections