Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41635978›Full record

ArticleChemistry (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany)2026

Uncertainty Calibration in Molecular Machine Learning: Comparing Evidential and Ensemble Approaches.

Bidhan Chandra Garain, Max Pinheiro, Matheus de Oliveira Bispo, Mario Barbatti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chemistry (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Bidhan Chandra GarainAix Marseille University, CNRS, ICR, Marseille, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2258-0002
Max PinheiroAix Marseille University, CNRS, ICR, Marseille, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5120-4172
Matheus de Oliveira BispoAix Marseille University, CNRS, ICR, Marseille, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8597-5875
Mario BarbattiAix Marseille University, CNRS, ICR, Marseille, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9336-6607

Funding

Fondation Aix-Marseille Université AMX-22-IN1-48HORIZON EUROPE European Research Council 832237Sony Sony Research Award Program
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning (ML) models are increasingly used in quantum chemistry, but their reliability hinges on uncertainty quantification (UQ). In this study, we compare two prominent UQ paradigms-deep evidential regression (DER) and deep ensembles-on the QM9 and WS22 datasets, with a specific emphasis on the role of post hoc calibration. Raw uncertainties from both methods were systematically miscalibrated: DER produced uncertainty estimates where data noise and model uncertainty were not cleanly separated, while ensembles produced sharper yet underconfident estimates. Applying calibration techniques such as isotonic regression (ISR), standard scaling, and GP-Normal corrected these deficiencies, aligning predicted variances with observed errors. On QM9, calibration enabled DER to filter high-confidence predictions more effectively than ensembles. On WS22, calibrated ensembles not only improved statistical reliability but also delivered substantial computational savings in active learning, reducing redundant ab initio evaluations by more than 20%. These results demonstrate that post hoc calibration is essential to transform uncertainty estimates from descriptive metrics into actionable signals, ensuring both trustworthy predictions and resource-efficient molecular modeling.

Indexed as

deep ensemblesmachine learningmolecular simulationpost hoc calibrationuncertainty quantification

Identifiers

PMID41635978
PMCPMC13107503

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.