pm$ 0.030    0.815$\pm$ 0.024     0.881$\pm$ 0.020
      (b)\[$50$/$\sigma$\]       $1$      0.875$\pm$ 0.020   0.558$\pm$ 0.031    0.814$\pm$ 0.024    0.907 $\pm$ 0.018
      (c)\[$20$/$\sigma$\]       $15$     0.875$\pm$ 0.020   0.608$\pm$ 0.030    0.769$\pm$ 0.026     0.893$\pm$ 0.019
      (d)\[$20$/$\sigma$\]       $1$      0.900$\pm$ 0.019   0.602$\pm$ 0.030    0.793$\pm$ 0.025     0.892$\pm$ 0.019

      : Validity frequencies \[with precision $\pm 95\%$\] of the CoRP, CoLP, CoRLaP, CENeP, the Early-Stopped CoLP and the $2$-PN CoLP based on $1000$ replications.[]{data-label="tab:frqVSsigma"}

    -0.1in

Validity.

:   Now, we consider the validity of the selected predictors (cf. **Step 3** in Algorithm \[alg:ConformalLasso\]). As shown in Table \[tab:frqVSsigma\], we observe that variations on the noise level, the variables correlations and the sparsity of the model do to not perturb the validity whereas the sample size relatively to the dimension $p$ does. When $n=300>p$, all the procedures seem to be quite similar and produce good predictors. In the other cases, i.e., when $n=p=50$ and $n=20<p$, the selected confidence predictors have worst performance than expected (validity with smaller proportion than $1-\varepsilon = 90\%$). Moreover, Sparse Confidence Predictors perform worst than the CoRP as observed in Table \[tab:frqVSsigma\]. As pointed in the accuracy part, one explication can be observed in Figure \[fig:plotslength\] as the selected predictor which also is not valid (iteration $93$) corresponds to an iteration in the unstable zone (that is, after iteration $85$). Then in order to
pm$ 0.030     0.815$\pm$ 0.024      0.881$\pm$ 0.020 
       (b)\[$50$/$\sigma$\ ]        $ 1 $       0.875$\pm$ 0.020    0.558$\pm$ 0.031     0.814$\pm$ 0.024     0.907 $ \pm$ 0.018 
       (c)\[$20$/$\sigma$\ ]        $ 15 $      0.875$\pm$ 0.020    0.608$\pm$ 0.030     0.769$\pm$ 0.026      0.893$\pm$ 0.019 
       (d)\[$20$/$\sigma$\ ]        $ 1 $       0.900$\pm$ 0.019    0.602$\pm$ 0.030     0.793$\pm$ 0.025      0.892$\pm$ 0.019 

      : Validity frequencies \[with precision $ \pm 95\%$\ ] of the CoRP, CoLP, CoRLaP, CENeP, the Early - Stopped CoLP and the $ 2$-PN   CoLP based on $ 1000 $ replications.[]{data - label="tab: frqVSsigma " } 

     -0.1 in 

 Validity. 

:    nowadays, we think the validity of the selected predictors (cystic fibrosis. * * Step 3 * * in Algorithm   \[alg: ConformalLasso\ ]). As shown in Table   \[tab: frqVSsigma\ ], we respect that pas seul on the noise level, the variables correlations and the sparseness of the model do to not perturb the validity whereas the sample size relatively to the dimension $ p$ suffice. When $ n=300 > p$, all the procedures seem to be quite similar and produce good forecaster. In the other cases, i.e., when $ n = p=50 $ and $ n=20 < p$, the selected assurance predictors have bad performance than expect (validity with smaller proportion than $ 1-\varepsilon = 90\%$). Moreover, Sparse Confidence Predictors perform bad than the CoRP as observed in Table   \[tab: frqVSsigma\ ]. As pointed in the accuracy part, one explication can be observed in Figure   \[fig: plotslength\ ] as the selected forecaster which besides is not valid (iteration $ 93 $) represent to an iteration in the unstable zone (that is, after iteration $ 85 $). Then in order to
pm$ 0.030    0.815$\pm$ 0.024     0.881$\pm$ 0.020
      (b)\[$50$/$\sinma$\]       $1$      0.875$\km$ 0.020   0.558$\pm$ 0.031    0.814$\pj$ 0.024    0.907 $\po$ 0.018
      (c)\[$20$/$\sigma$\]       $15$     0.875$\pm$ 0.020   0.608$\pm$ 0.030    0.769$\pm$ 0.026     0.893$\pm$ 0.019
      (d)\[$20$/$\rigma$\]       $1$      0.900$\pm$ 0.019   0.602$\pm$ 0.030    0.793$\pm$ 0.025     0.892$\pm$ 0.019

      : Vanmdity frequencigs \[with prechsion $\pm 95\%$\] of tve ClRP, CoLP, CoRLaP, CENeP, the Early-Stop[ed CoLL wnd the $2$-PN CoLP bastd jn $1000$ dvpoications.[]{data-label="tab:frqVSsigja"}

    -0.1ii

Validity.

:   Now, we consider the validity lf tje selected predichors (cf. **Stek 3** ig Algorithm \[ale:ConformalLasso\]). As shosn in Table \[tab:frqVSsigma\], we obsdrve chat variatuobs lt the noise levej, the variables corralationx and the sparxitb of the model do to not 'erturb the validity whereas dhz sample size relativwlt to jhe dhmenruon $p$ soxs. Shen $n=300>o$, aml the prodedures seen to be quite similsr qnd produce gkod prqdyctors. In the other cases, i.e., when $n=p=50$ ang $n=20<l$, the selected confidenxe predictors have wotst perforiance than expected (validity with smaller proporthon tiav $1-\vcvcpsiuin = 90\%$). Moreover, Sparse Confidence Predictors perfjdm wprst than the GoRP as observed im Hanje \[tab:frqVSsigoa\]. As 'kihted in the accurafy part, one wxplicatijn csn be observed in Figure \[fig:plotslength\] cs rhe selected predietor which auso os noy valid (iteration $93$) corrzsponda to an itegation in ghe unstable zond (tmat is, after iteration $85$). Then yn order vo
pm$ 0.030 0.815$\pm$ 0.024 0.881$\pm$ 0.020 (b)\[$50$/$\sigma$\] 0.020 0.031 0.814$\pm$ 0.907 $\pm$ 0.018 0.030 0.026 0.893$\pm$ 0.019 $1$ 0.900$\pm$ 0.019 0.030 0.793$\pm$ 0.025 0.892$\pm$ 0.019 : frequencies \[with precision $\pm 95\%$\] of the CoRP, CoLP, CoRLaP, CENeP, the Early-Stopped and the $2$-PN CoLP based on $1000$ replications.[]{data-label="tab:frqVSsigma"} -0.1in Validity. : Now, we the of selected (cf. **Step 3** in Algorithm \[alg:ConformalLasso\]). As shown in Table \[tab:frqVSsigma\], we observe that variations on noise level, the variables correlations and the sparsity the model do to perturb the validity whereas the size to the $p$ When all the procedures to be quite similar and produce good predictors. In the other cases, i.e., when $n=p=50$ and $n=20<p$, selected confidence worst performance expected with proportion than $1-\varepsilon Moreover, Sparse Confidence Predictors perform worst as observed in Table \[tab:frqVSsigma\]. As pointed in accuracy part, explication can be observed in Figure as the selected predictor which also is not (iteration $93$) corresponds to an iteration in the unstable zone (that is, after iteration $85$). order to
pm$ 0.030    0.815$\pm$ 0.024     0.881$\pm$ 0.020
      (b)\[$50$/$\sigma$\]       $1$      0.875$\pm$ 0.020   0.558$\pm$ 0.031    0.814$\pm$ 0.024    0.907 $\pm$ 0.018
      (c)\[$20$/$\sigmA$\]       $15$     0.875$\pm$ 0.020   0.608$\pm$ 0.030    0.769$\pm$ 0.026     0.893$\pm$ 0.019
      (d)\[$20$/$\Sigma$\]       $1$      0.900$\Pm$ 0.019   0.602$\pM$ 0.030    0.793$\pm$ 0.025     0.892$\Pm$ 0.019

      : valiDity Frequencies \[witH PrecIsion $\pm 95\%$\] of the CoRP, CoLP, CorLaP, CeNEp, the eArLy-StoPped CoLp AnD THe $2$-Pn COLp baSeD On $1000$ RepliCatIons.[]{datA-label="tab:fRqVssIgma"}

    -0.1in

ValidiTY.

:   NOw, we considEr tHe validity of The SelectEd PreDIctorS (cf. **step 3** iN AlgorIThm \[alg:conformallaSSo\]). As shOWn in TabLE \[TaB:frqvSsigma\], we observe tHAt VAriations on the Noise lEvEL, tHE VarIabLes correlaTiOns anD The sparSItY OF The MOdel do to not peRturb the valIDitY whereAs The SAmple sIze reLaTIveLy to the dimeNsioN $p$ does. WheN $n=300>p$, all THe proceDUres seeM to be qUitE siMilaR AnD pRodUcE GooD PrEdiCTorS. In the otHeR cAses, i.E., wheN $N=P=50$ ANd $n=20<p$, The SeleCted cOnfidence predIctOrs hAVe wOrst pErforMancE tHan exPected (ValidItY with smaller proPortIon than $1-\vaRepSiLon = 90\%$). moReoveR, sparse conFidEnce PreDictors PErfOrM WORsT than the CoRP as obseRvED In table \[tab:FrqVSsIGmA\]. AS Pointed iN tHe aCcurACY part, One eXPlIcation cAn be obSErVeD in FiguRe \[Fig:ploTsLenGth\] As the SElecTed preDictor whIch alSO is not valid (iteRAtion $93$) correspoNDs TO An ITeraTioN in the unstaBle zONe (thAt is, AFtEr iTEratiOn $85$). TheN iN OrDEr to
pm$ 0.030    0.815$\pm$ 0. 024     0. 881$\ pm$  0. 02 0
    (b)\[$50$/$\si g ma$\ ]       $1$      0.875 $\pm$  0 . 020 0 .558$ \pm$ 0. 0 31   0 .8 14 $\p m$ 0. 024   0 .907 $\ pm$ 0.018    (c)\[$20$/$ \ si gma$\]     $15$     0.8 75$ \pm$ 0 .0 20 0.60 8$\ pm$ 0 .030  0.769 $\pm$ 0.0 26     0. 8 93$\pm$ 0 .0 19
     (d)\[$20$/$\ s ig m a$\]       $1$      0. 9 00 $ \ pm$  0. 019   0.60 2$ \pm$0 .030  0. 7 9 3 $\p m $ 0.025     0 .892$\pm$ 0 . 019 

    : V a lidity  freq ue n cie s \[with pr ecis ion $\pm95\%$\ ]  of the CoRP, C oLP, C oRL aP,  CEN e P,  t heEa r ly- S to ppe d  Co LP and t he  $ 2$-PN  CoL P b a sedon$100 0$ re plications.[] {da ta-l a bel ="tab :frqV Ssig ma "}

   -0. 1in
Va lidity.

:   No w, w e conside r t he  va li dityo f thesel ect ed pred ictors( cf.  * * S t ep  3** in Algorithm\[ a l g: Conforma lLasso \ ]) .A s shownin  Ta ble\ [ tab:f rqVS s ig ma\], we  obser v eth at vari at ions o nthe  no ise l e vel,  the v ariables  corr e lations and th e  sparsity oft he m od e l do  to  not pertur b th e  val idit y  w her e as th e sam pl e  s i ze relatively to th edimens ion $ p$ does. When  $n=300>p$ , a ll the p roce d ur e s seem to be q uitesimilar an d  produce  good  predict ors. In t h e  other c ase s,i.e .,w h en  $n=p=50$ and $ n=20 <p $, thesel ected c onf ide nce  pr ed ictors ha ve worst  p er fo rm anc e tha n  expecte d(va li dit y wit h  small er pr opor ti on tha n $1-\v a re p s ilon  =  9 0\%$ ).Mo reove r, S p ars e Confi dence Pre dic t orspe rf orm wor st than the C oR P as obser ve d i n Tabl e \[tab:fr qVSsigma\]. As pointedi n the a ccu racypart , one exp lic ationcan be obs ervedin Fi gu re\ [ fig:p l o ts len gt h\] as the s ele ctedpr edic tor whi ch also is not val i d ( iteration $93 $)corr e s po nds to anit e rat i o n in the unstab le zone (t ha t  i s, after i t era ti on $85$ ). Then  in o r der to
pm$ 0.030_ _ 0.815$\pm$ 0.024 _ __0.881$\pm$ 0.020
__  _ (b)\[$50$/$\sigma$\] _   _ $1$ __   0.875$\pm$ 0.020   0.558$\pm$ 0.031    0.814$\pm$ 0.024__ _0.907_$\pm$_0.018
    _ (c)\[$20$/$\sigma$\]   _ _ $15$     0.875$\pm$ 0.020__ 0.608$\pm$ 0.030_   0.769$\pm$ 0.026    _0.893$\pm$ 0.019
    _ (d)\[$20$/$\sigma$\] ___   $1$_     0.900$\pm$_0.019   0.602$\pm$ 0.030 _  0.793$\pm$ 0.025   _ 0.892$\pm$ 0.019

   _  : Validity frequencies_\[with precision_$\pm 95\%$\] of the CoRP,_CoLP, CoRLaP, CENeP,_the Early-Stopped_CoLP and the_$2$-PN CoLP based on $1000$ replications.[]{data-label="tab:frqVSsigma"}

 _  -0.1in

Validity.

:_  Now, we consider the_validity_of the selected_predictors_(cf._**Step 3**_in Algorithm \[alg:ConformalLasso\]). As_shown_in Table \[tab:frqVSsigma\],_we_observe that variations on the noise_level,_the variables correlations and the sparsity of_the model do to_not_perturb the validity whereas_the sample size relatively to_the dimension $p$ does. When $n=300>p$,_all the_procedures seem_to be quite similar and produce good predictors. In the other_cases, i.e., when $n=p=50$ and $n=20<p$,_the selected confidence predictors_have worst_performance_than expected (validity_with_smaller proportion_than $1-\varepsilon = 90\%$). Moreover, Sparse Confidence_Predictors perform_worst than the CoRP as observed_in Table \[tab:frqVSsigma\]. As pointed_in_the accuracy part, one explication can_be observed in Figure \[fig:plotslength\] as the_selected predictor which also is_not_valid_(iteration $93$) corresponds to an_iteration in the unstable zone (that_is, after iteration_$85$). Then in order to