The Accuracy Paradox: Empirical Diagnostic of Default Decision Thresholds in Multi-Label Enzyme Commission Prediction [With Code]

Enzyme function prediction is a hierarchical, knowledge-intensive form of protein function classification. Existing benchmarks expose an anomaly: general LLMs often get the coarse first level right, yet once asked for a complete EC number their accuracy at levels two through four drops to almost zero, while specialized models and tools stay usable. We propose EC-Reason-Bench, a training-free, diagnostic evaluation protocol built to answer two questions: why general LLMs score close to nothing on EC number prediction, and how much of that loss can be recovered without updating a single weight. We break enzyme classification ability into four orthogonal levers that can each be measured on their own: output structure, external knowledge, reasoning structure, and reasoning robustness. We test each lever with an inference-time method against a shared zero-shot baseline reproducing previously reported near-zero performance. Experiments with several strong reasoning LLMs yield four main findings. First, external knowledge is decisive and must precede reasoning: uniformly low closed-book performance rises sharply with open-book access, narrowing model gaps. Second, in closed-book settings, whether cascading and chain-of-thought help or hurt depends on a model's tendency to abstain. Third, once evidence is available the aggregate score of the best LLM setting is indistinguishable from simply voting the EC numbers of the nearest retrieved neighbors; that tie is an artifact of averaging, and it hides a large gain on adversarial evidence set against an equally large loss on multi-functional enzymes. Reasoning over evidence therefore acts as an arbiter of conflicting neighbors rather than as a source of knowledge, and no single-number leaderboard can see it. Fourth, accuracy obeys a law of homology availability.

A key factor in deciding whether to trust an automatic prediction is its confidence score, which should be calibrated to match the actual probability of the prediction being correct. Most confidence calibration metrics target binary or multi-class tasks, while multi-label calibration remains largely underexplored. Multi-label classification tasks, such as assigning medical codes to clinical notes or determining news topics, are usually dominated by a large number of negatives, i.e., labels that do not apply. We show that existing binning schemes to compute label-wise expected calibration error either underestimate the error, simply reflect label frequency, or suffer from many bins with very few instances. To achieve trustworthy label-wise calibration errors, we propose a new binning scheme that gives equal weight to positive and negative label assignments. Our empirical study demonstrates that in contrast to existing binning schemes, our new scheme results in meaningful estimates of calibration error in hierarchical and in extreme multi-label classification. We also show that calibrating confidence scores of large language models for multi-label predictions is an open challenge. Our detailed analysis lays the foundation for further research by providing a solid evaluation metric for measuring calibration in multi-label classification.

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.