Drug discovery and development underpins healthcare but remains costly and failure-prone. A critical bottleneck lies in predicting molecular properties such as solubility, potency, and toxicity, which directly determine whether a candidate can advance from preclinical to clinical trials. Artificial Intelligence (AI) has accelerated this process, yet its reliability is often undermined by distribution shift, as experimental conditions frequently diverge from training data. In addition, conventional point predictions provide only single-value estimates, offering limited guidance for high-stakes experimental design. We address these challenges with a conformal prediction framework tailored to label shift. By weighting conformal scores using marginal label probability ratios, our method produces statistically rigorous prediction intervals without retraining. This enables robust uncertainty quantification even when property distributions drift, directly tackling one of the most pervasive obstacles to applying AI in real-world drug development. By moving beyond accuracy alone to provide actionable confidence measures, our approach enhances the trustworthiness of AI-driven predictions. This further aligns predictive modeling with regulatory demands for transparency and uncertainty reporting and ultimately supports more reliable decision-making in billion-dollar development pipelines.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Schematic diagram of conformal prediction for molecular properties under label shift.
Figure 2: The KDE distributions for 1000 repeated experiments using standard split conformal prediction and the proposed methods are shown. The triangular markers on the x-axis correspond to the mean value of each distribution. The gray and red lines indicate the coverage distributions obtained by applying standard split conformal prediction to the test data without and with label shift (non-uniformly subsampled), respectively.
Figure 3: The KDE distributions for 1000 repeated experiments using standard split conformal prediction and the proposed methods are shown. The triangular markers on the x-axis correspond to the mean value of each distribution. Coverage distributions are shown for the test data under label shift: the red line corresponds to standard split conformal prediction, while the purple, green, and light blue lines correspond to conformal prediction with weights calculated via BBSE, RLLS, and MLE (BCTS), respectively.
Figure 4: The KDE distributions for 1000 repeated experiments using standard split conformal prediction and the proposed methods are shown. The triangular markers on the x-axis correspond to the mean value of each distribution. Interval length distributions are shown for the test data under label shift: the red line corresponds to standard split conformal prediction, while the purple, green, and light blue lines correspond to conformal prediction with weights calculated via BBSE, RLLS, and MLE (BCTS), respectively.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Hyperparameter
BBSE
RLLS
MLE
Optimizer
AdamW [ 34 ]
AdamW [ 34 ]
AdamW [ 34 ]
Adam betas
(0.9, 0.99)
(0.9, 0.99)
(0.9, 0.99)
Learning rate
5e-5
5e-5
5e-5
Weight decay
0.1
0.1
0.1
Warmup steps
100
100
100
Error rate α
0.1
0.1
0.1
Appendix
Table 1: Hyperparameters for training BBSE, RLLS, and MLE
Bins
BBSE
RLLS
MLE (BCTS)
Coverage
Length
Coverage
Length
Coverage
Length
5
0.865 ± 0.033
4.346 ± 0.316
0.886 ± 0.034
4.804 ± 0.590
0.899 ± 0.034
5.163 ± 0.832
15
0.845 ± 0.032
3.993 ± 0.236
0.877 ± 0.032
4.577 ± 0.42
0.895 ± 0.034
5.031 ± 0.620
50
0.804 ± 0.033
3.414 ± 0.149
0.859 ± 0.032
4.204 ± 0.297
0.892 ± 0.034
4.947 ± 0.581
100
0.782 ± 0.033
3.165 ± 0.123
0.843 ± 0.032
3.934 ± 0.222
0.858 ± 0.031
4.192 ± 0.242
Appendix
Table 2: Comparison of average coverage and interval length across different bin numbers for BBSE, RLLS, and MLE methods.
Figure 5: The KDE coverage distribution (top) and interval length distribution (bottom) for 1000 repeated experiments using standard split conformal prediction and the proposed methods are shown. Each color represents the number of bins used to calculate marginal probability ratios via BBSE. The triangular markers on the x-axis indicate the mean value of each distribution.
Figure 6: The KDE coverage distribution (top) and interval length distribution (bottom) for 1000 repeated experiments using standard split conformal prediction and the proposed methods are shown. Each color represents the number of bins used to calculate marginal probability ratios via RLLS. The triangular markers on the x-axis indicate the mean value of each distribution.
Figure 7: The KDE coverage distribution (top) and interval length distribution (bottom) for 1000 repeated experiments using standard split conformal prediction and the proposed methods are shown. Each color represents the number of bins used to calculate marginal probability ratios via MLE. The triangular markers on the x-axis indicate the mean value of each distribution.
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 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.
Hyeonsu Lee, Juyeon Kim, Erkhembayar Jadamba +2
MOGAM Institute for Biomedical Research, Korea · CROID Research and aSSIST University, Korea
Uncertainty quantification is essential for deploying machine learning models in high-stakes domains such as scientific discovery and healthcare. Conformal Prediction (CP) provides finite-sample coverage guarantees under exchangeability, an assumption often violated in practice due to distribution shift. Under covariate shift, restoring validity requires importance weighting, yet accurate density-ratio estimation becomes unstable when training and test distributions exhibit limited support overlap. We propose KMM-CP, a conformal prediction framework based on Kernel Mean Matching (KMM) for covariate-shift correction. We show that KMM directly controls the bias-variance components governing conformal coverage error by minimizing RKHS moment discrepancy under explicit weight constraints, and establish asymptotic coverage guarantees under mild conditions. We then introduce a selective extension that identifies regions of reliable support overlap and restricts conformal correction to this subset, further improving stability in low-overlap regimes. Experiments on molecular property prediction benchmarks with realistic distribution shifts show that KMM-CP reduces coverage gap by over 50% compared to existing approaches. The code is available at https://github.com/siddharthal/KMM-CP.
Siddhartha Laghuvarapu, Rohan Deb, Jimeng Sun
Siebel School of Computing and Data Science, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA.
We consider the problem of uncertainty quantification for a pretrained classification model deployed under unknown distribution shift. We propose Audited Conformal Prediction (ACP), a method that leverages a small labeled dataset from the target population to train an auxiliary audit model identifying inputs where the legacy model is likely to fail. By integrating the audit model's outputs into the conformal prediction framework, ACP produces prediction sets that guarantee marginal coverage while achieving substantially higher conditional coverage in practice than existing approaches. We develop and analyze two complementary integration strategies -- one targeting marginal coverage with improved conditional performance, the other providing explicit group-conditional coverage guarantees -- and establish theoretical guarantees for both. Experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets validate the method and illustrate trade-offs between prediction set size and conditional coverage.
Yanfei Zhou, Rizal Fathony, Nam H. Nguyen +1
Department of Data Sciences and Operations University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089 · AI Foundations, Capital One New York, NY 10017 · Department of Data Sciences and Operations Thomas Lord Department of Computer Science University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089