TL;DR
This paper evaluates various uncertainty quantification methods for neural network-based molecular property prediction, revealing no single method is best across all datasets and highlighting the need for further research.
Contribution
It provides a systematic comparison of UQ methods for neural models in molecular property prediction across multiple datasets, offering practical recommendations.
Findings
No method is universally superior across datasets
Existing UQ methods have limitations in reliability
Further research is needed to improve UQ techniques
Abstract
Uncertainty quantification (UQ) is an important component of molecular property prediction, particularly for drug discovery applications where model predictions direct experimental design and where unanticipated imprecision wastes valuable time and resources. The need for UQ is especially acute for neural models, which are becoming increasingly standard yet are challenging to interpret. While several approaches to UQ have been proposed in the literature, there is no clear consensus on the comparative performance of these models. In this paper, we study this question in the context of regression tasks. We systematically evaluate several methods on five benchmark datasets using multiple complementary performance metrics. Our experiments show that none of the methods we tested is unequivocally superior to all others, and none produces a particularly reliable ranking of errors across…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
