Safety-Driven Prediction Validation

• Safety-Driven Prediction Validation is a framework that rigorously evaluates whether pragmatic probabilistic predictions fulfill predefined safety criteria for tasked inferences.
• It employs explicit mathematical conditions, such as expectation equivalence and calibration, to validate predictions even under model misspecification.
• The framework establishes a hierarchy—from full validity to unbiasedness—that guides practitioners in applying risk-aware and task-specific decision-making methods.

Safety-driven prediction validation is the systematic assessment of whether the probabilistic predictions used in statistical or decision-theoretic contexts can be relied upon for specified tasks, with guarantees that the realized performance matches or closely tracks what the decision maker expects—even in the absence of full model correctness or subjective Bayesian confidence. The "Safe Probability" framework (Grünwald, 2016) formalizes this concept by defining mathematical conditions under which a pragmatic probability distribution yields provably reliable predictions for a well-defined class of tasks, thereby providing a rigorous, task-sensitive notion of when a prediction can be said to be "validated" with respect to safety for its intended use.

1. Formalization of Safety in Probability Distributions

A central construct is the "safe" predictive distribution $\tilde{P}$, which is not necessarily the true distribution (or even an element of the model class $\mathcal{P}^*$ representing possible beliefs), but which is chosen to ensure reliability for particular prediction tasks. The safety of $\tilde{P}$ is defined with respect to two random variables: $U$ (the target of prediction) and $V$ (the observed context).

The primary safety condition is:

$$\mathbb{E}_P[U] = \mathbb{E}_P[\,\mathbb{E}_{\tilde{P}}[U|V]\,] \quad \forall P \in \mathcal{P}^*$$

where $\mathbb{E}_P$ denotes expectation under $P$, and $\mathbb{E}_{\tilde{P}}[U|V]$ is the conditional expectation with respect to the pragmatic distribution $\tilde{P}$.

This condition ensures that, although $\tilde{P}$ may not represent the true generative process, its predictions—when averaged over the uncertainty in $V$ encoded by any $P \in \mathcal{P}^*$—coincide in expectation with predictions from $P$ itself. This stands in contrast to standard Bayesian inference (which always commits to a unique "subjective" $P$) and imprecise or multiple-prior approaches (which operate over $\mathcal{P}^*$ but typically eschew single recommendations). Through this, safety-driven validation is made precise as context-dependent prediction reliability.

2. Prediction Validation and Task-Specific Reliability

The safety property is fundamentally a task-relative criterion for prediction validation. For any function $g(U)$ (for instance, a loss function, indicator, or moment), safety for $g$-prediction is:

$$\mathbb{E}_P[g(U)] = \mathbb{E}_P[\,\mathbb{E}_{\tilde{P}}[g(U)|V]\,] \quad \forall P \in \mathcal{P}^*$$

Thus, if $\tilde{P}$ is safe for $g(U)$, then risk evaluations, interval construction, or other statistical functionals computed using $\tilde{P}$ are reliable under any plausible data-generating process represented within $\mathcal{P}^*$.

A central implication is that safe prediction forms a formal basis for validating the use of conditional probabilities in decision-making: if the safety equation holds for the desired task, then such uses are justified; otherwise, naïve conditioning or updating (as in well-known paradoxes) must be ruled out.

3. Hierarchy of Safety Degrees

The framework posits a hierarchy of safety notions, each characterized by stricter or looser requirements on the nature of "safe" predictions:

Level	Formal Condition	Guarantees
Validity	$\tilde{P}(U|V) = P(U|V)$ for all $P \in \mathcal{P}^*$	Full match on conditional distributions
Calibration	$P(U|[\tilde{P}(U|V)=p]) = p$ for all $p$	Average conditional correctness
Confidence safe	Coverage of confidence/credible intervals matches nominal under $P$	Correct frequentist interval coverage
Unbiasedness	$$\mathbb{E}_P[U] = \mathbb{E}_P[\,\mathbb{E}_{\tilde{P}}[U|V]\,]$$	Correctness only for expectations

This hierarchy enables quantification of how much and in precisely what sense a prediction can be trusted. The strongest, validity, implies task- and sample-wise correctness; calibration guarantees long-run frequency alignment; confidence safety ensures interval estimates are reliable on average; unbiasedness only matches averages (e.g., in estimation problems), providing the weakest guarantee.

This structure allows practitioners to restrict probabilistic inference to those tasks for which the chosen $\tilde{P}$ can be trusted, avoiding the dangers of unvalidated predictions.

4. Connection to Fiducial and Confidence Distributions

Safe probability formalizes the use of fiducial distributions (as introduced by Fisher) by restricting their employment to the class of inferences for which they are demonstrably safe. Specifically, fiducial distributions $\tilde{F}(\theta|x^n)$ constructed using pivotal quantities

$\tilde{F}(\theta|x^n) = F_{U'}(\theta - \bar{x})$

(where $U'$ is a pivot with fixed distribution under all $\theta$) can be shown to be confidence-safe: intervals derived from them have correct frequentist coverage, but they are not generally valid or calibrated for all conceivable uses.

In the safe probability view, the problematic aspects of fiducial inference are understood as a consequence of using the fiducial distribution for inferences outside its validated "safe" domain. When properly restricted, it functions as a pragmatic tool for tasks such as confidence interval construction, but not as a general-purpose posterior.

5. Mathematical Underpinnings and Core Conditions

The framework is grounded in explicit mathematical formulations:

• Safety for all measurable properties $g(U)$:

$$\mathbb{E}_{P}[g(U)] = \mathbb{E}_{P}[\mathbb{E}_{\tilde{P}}[g(U)|V]] \quad \forall P\in\mathcal{P}^*$$

• Calibration condition:

$P(U | [\tilde{P}(U | V) = p]) = p$

• Confidence safety (for interval $C(V)$ at level $\alpha$):

$P(U \in C(V)) = \alpha$

• Generalized via tower property analogs for random variables encoding predictions.

This allows for systematic identification and proof of when a pragmatic predictive distribution $\tilde{P}$ is safe for a given inferential goal—and, crucially, when it is not.

6. Comparison with Other Inference Approaches

Safe probability occupies a unique position:

• Unlike multiple-prior or imprecise probability methods, which shrink from committing to a single distribution (at a cost of often being unable to extract actionable probabilistic predictions),
• and unlike strict Bayesianism, which always does commit (and incurs the risk that the chosen model is not justified for the task),
• the safe probability approach dictates a pragmatic mapping from the epistemic uncertainty set $\mathcal{P}^*$ to a single, but use-restricted, predictive distribution $\tilde{P}$ that is safe for well-defined tasks, giving formal validation to those uses and flagging the remainder as unjustified.

In practical terms, this enables robust and reliable inferences without either excessive conservatism or unjustified overconfidence.

7. Implications, Applications, and Broader Significance

Safety-driven prediction validation, operationalized via safe probability, offers several key implications:

• It clarifies and quantifies exactly which uses of a given probabilistic model are justified, providing measurable and transparent guarantees.
• It provides a principled approach to uncertainty quantification and risk assessment by restricting attention to validated inferences—thus preventing paradoxical or misleading recommendations, as exemplified by classical puzzles such as Monty Hall.
• It justifies the use of pragmatic (even fiducial) distributions for specific, safety-validated tasks, while prohibiting their unwarranted use elsewhere.
• It enables a middle ground between Bayesian and robust/statistical approaches, leading to nuanced, context-dependent practices in prediction, estimation, and decision theory.

The formal apparatus—especially the safety equations and calibration/coverage conditions—underpins contemporary efforts in statistical modeling, risk evaluation, and various domains of applied decision-making, wherever quantification of predictive reliability is critical.

---

Safety-driven prediction validation, as articulated in the safe probability framework, provides a mathematically rigorous, context-aware foundation for assessing when and how to trust probabilistic predictions, bridging foundational statistical debates and supporting robust, reliable decision-making in uncertain environments.