Benchmarking non-conformity score functions in conformal prediction

Bayes-assisted conformal prediction combines the strengths of Bayesian modelling with exact, distribution-free frequentist coverage guarantees. Although conformal validity is preserved even when the Bayesian working model (BWM) is misspecified, the size of the resulting prediction sets can degrade substantially when the prior is poorly aligned with the observed data. We address this limitation by introducing RoBAS (Robust Bayes-Assisted Shrinkage): a Bayes-assisted framework for constructing robust nonconformity scores, with two instantiations: one induced by a heavy-tailed BWM, and a closed-form empirical Bayes shrinkage score. The resulting scores adapt to the quality of the working information encoded in the prior: when this information is reliable, they exploit it to produce efficient prediction sets; when it is weak or inaccurate, they revert to the Distance-To-Average (DTA) score, a robust non-informative baseline. We evaluate the proposed scores on tabular and image regression tasks where the training distribution may differ from the calibration and test distributions, while the calibration and test data themselves remain exchangeable. We find that they are competitive with widely used scores in the absence of such shift, while substantially reducing interval widths in shifted settings.

Conformal prediction provides distribution-free uncertainty quantification under exchangeability. However, this assumption is violated by label shift, where the marginal distribution of labels changes while the conditional distribution of inputs given labels remains stable. Under such shifts, standard conformal procedures no longer maintain their intended coverage behavior. Existing approaches address this via importance weighting. They pair the reweighting with residual-based nonconformity scores that ignore predictive uncertainty. The resulting intervals have uniform width. Bayesian conformal methods produce adaptive intervals by leveraging predictive distributions. They evaluate conformity under the source predictive, which is misaligned with the target domain under label shift. We propose the \emph{Label-Shift-Adjusted Bayesian Score} (LSA score), a nonconformity score derived from a posterior predictive tilting identity. This identity shows that the target predictive is an importance-weighted transformation of the source predictive. We use it to derive a direct correction to the Bayesian score. We evaluate the method on molecular property prediction under controlled label shift. The LSA score consistently yields shorter intervals than residual-based and source-based Bayesian scores. Coverage in the target domain remains comparable. Under stronger shift, all methods incur some coverage loss due to pseudo-label-based density-ratio estimation. The LSA score is defined for any source predictive with a tractable log-density. We instantiate it with Bayesian Ridge Regression, where the correction admits a closed form.

Conformal prediction is being adopted in drug discovery to put an honest number on model reliability: pick an error rate alpha, and the method returns prediction sets containing the true label with probability at least 1 - alpha. We show this guarantee can be dangerous on imbalanced datasets. Across four datasets, standard (marginal) conformal prediction hits its global 90% coverage target while leaving the minority class badly exposed: realized minority coverage falls to 64.8% on blood-brain-barrier penetration and to 4.2% on clinical-trial toxicity, where the rare class is nearly abandoned. The failure is not tied to one model: a random forest, a graph network, and a frozen chemical language model all reproduce it (p < 0.001 in every case), with severity tracking baseline calibration on rare labels rather than architecture. A conservation identity explains the effect: the minority's shortfall equals the majority's surplus amplified by the imbalance ratio, predicting the measured gap to within one point and ordering severity across datasets. The failure survives realistic scaffold splits and a second conformal score, while aggregate accuracy and overall coverage stay reassuringly high, which is exactly why it is easy to miss. Class-conditional (Mondrian) conformal prediction closes the gap on every dataset, restoring minority coverage to target for a modest increase in prediction-set size. We localize the failures to generic molecular scaffolds - plain benzene and pyridine cores occurring in both classes - propose a one-number diagnostic, and show with a cost model that abstaining on affected compounds flips a screening campaign from net-negative to net-positive utility. Our contribution is demonstrating on real chemistry how severe and invisible this known conformal-theory gap becomes under imbalance, and laying out a practical protocol restoring per-class reliability.