Conformal prediction for the design problem

Many applications of machine learning methods involve an iterative protocol in which data are collected, a model is trained, and then outputs of that model are used to choose what data to consider next. For example, one data-driven approach for designing proteins is to train a regression model to predict the fitness of protein sequences, then use it to propose new sequences believed to exhibit greater fitness than observed in the training data. Since validating designed sequences in the wet lab is typically costly, it is important to quantify the uncertainty in the model’s predictions. This is challenging because of a characteristic type of distribution shift between the training and test data in the design setting—one in which the training and test data are statistically dependent, as the latter is chosen based on the former. Consequently, the model’s error on the test data—that is, the designed sequences—has an unknown and possibly complex relationship with its error on the training data. We introduce a method to quantify predictive uncertainty in such settings. We do so by constructing confidence sets for predictions that account for the dependence between the training and test data. The confidence sets we construct have finite-sample guarantees that hold for any prediction algorithm, even when a trained model chooses the test-time input distribution. As a motivating use case, we demonstrate how our method quantifies uncertainty for the predicted fitness of designed proteins with several real data sets, and can therefore be used to select design algorithms that achieve acceptable trade-offs between high predicted fitness and low predictive uncertainty.

[1]  Hunter M Nisonoff,et al.  Learning protein fitness models from evolutionary and assay-labeled data , 2022, Nature Biotechnology.

[2]  Susmit Jha,et al.  iDECODe: In-distribution Equivariance for Conformal Out-of-distribution Detection , 2022, AAAI.

[3]  Aaditya Ramdas,et al.  Tracking the risk of a deployed model and detecting harmful distribution shifts , 2021, ICLR.

[4]  David H. Brookes,et al.  Optimal trade-off control in machine learning–based library design, with application to adeno-associated virus (AAV) for gene therapy , 2021, bioRxiv.

[5]  Eli N. Weinstein,et al.  Optimal Design of Stochastic DNA Synthesis Protocols based on Generative Sequence Models , 2021, bioRxiv.

[6]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Learn then Test: Calibrating Predictive Algorithms to Achieve Risk Control , 2021, ArXiv.

[7]  Silvio Savarese,et al.  Sample-Efficient Safety Assurances using Conformal Prediction , 2021, WAFR.

[8]  Yisong Yue,et al.  Informed training set design enables efficient machine learning-assisted directed protein evolution. , 2021, Cell systems.

[9]  Connor W. Coley,et al.  Evidential Deep Learning for Guided Molecular Property Prediction and Discovery , 2021, ACS central science.

[10]  Zachary Z. Sun,et al.  Deep neural language modeling enables functional protein generation across families , 2021, bioRxiv.

[11]  Anastasios Nikolas Angelopoulos,et al.  A Gentle Introduction to Conformal Prediction and Distribution-Free Uncertainty Quantification , 2021, ArXiv.

[12]  Kevin K. Yang,et al.  Adaptive machine learning for protein engineering , 2021, Current opinion in structural biology.

[13]  Emmanuel Candes,et al.  Adaptive Conformal Inference Under Distribution Shift , 2021, NeurIPS.

[14]  David H. Brookes,et al.  On the sparsity of fitness functions and implications for learning , 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[15]  Philip A. Romero,et al.  Machine learning-guided acyl-ACP reductase engineering for improved in vivo fatty alcohol production , 2021, Nature Communications.

[16]  George E. Dahl,et al.  Machine learning guided aptamer refinement and discovery , 2021, Nature Communications.

[17]  E. Candès,et al.  Testing for outliers with conformal p-values , 2021, The Annals of Statistics.

[18]  Kadina E. Johnston,et al.  Protein sequence design with deep generative models , 2021, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[19]  Hunter M. Nisonoff,et al.  Combining evolutionary and assay-labelled data for protein fitness prediction , 2021, bioRxiv.

[20]  Aaditya Ramdas,et al.  Distribution-free uncertainty quantification for classification under label shift , 2021, UAI.

[21]  Lucy J. Colwell,et al.  Deep diversification of an AAV capsid protein by machine learning , 2021, Nature Biotechnology.

[22]  Sangdon Park,et al.  PAC Confidence Predictions for Deep Neural Network Classifiers , 2020, ICLR.

[23]  Adam J. Riesselman,et al.  Protein design and variant prediction using autoregressive generative models , 2019, Nature Communications.

[24]  Vladimir Vovk,et al.  Testing for concept shift online , 2020, ArXiv.

[25]  Xiaoyu Hu,et al.  A Distribution-Free Test of Covariate Shift Using Conformal Prediction , 2020 .

[26]  Brian Hie,et al.  Leveraging Uncertainty in Machine Learning Accelerates Biological Discovery and Design. , 2020, Cell systems.

[27]  Richard Wang,et al.  AdaLead: A simple and robust adaptive greedy search algorithm for sequence design , 2020, ArXiv.

[28]  Sam Sinai,et al.  A primer on model-guided exploration of fitness landscapes for biological sequence design , 2020, ArXiv.

[29]  John C. Duchi,et al.  Robust Validation: Confident Predictions Even When Distributions Shift , 2020, ArXiv.

[30]  Simona Cocco,et al.  An evolution-based model for designing chorismate mutase enzymes , 2020, Science.

[31]  F. Arnold,et al.  Signal Peptides Generated by Attention-Based Neural Networks. , 2020, ACS synthetic biology.

[32]  Clara Fannjiang,et al.  Autofocused oracles for model-based design , 2020, NeurIPS.

[33]  Georg Seelig,et al.  A Generative Neural Network for Maximizing Fitness and Diversity of Synthetic DNA and Protein Sequences , 2020, Cell systems.

[34]  David Dohan,et al.  Model-based reinforcement learning for biological sequence design , 2020, ICLR.

[35]  Alex Hawkins-Hooker,et al.  Generating functional protein variants with variational autoencoders , 2020, bioRxiv.

[36]  Celestine Mendler-Dünner,et al.  Performative Prediction , 2020, ICML.

[37]  Ethan C. Alley,et al.  Low-N protein engineering with data-efficient deep learning , 2020, Nature Methods.

[38]  D. Rus,et al.  Deep Evidential Regression , 2019, NeurIPS.

[39]  Eric D. Kelsic,et al.  Comprehensive AAV capsid fitness landscape reveals a viral gene and enables machine-guided design , 2019, Science.

[40]  Haoyang Zeng,et al.  Quantification of Uncertainty in Peptide-MHC Binding Prediction Improves High-Affinity Peptide Selection for Therapeutic Design. , 2019, Cell systems.

[41]  Ziheng Wang,et al.  Antibody complementarity determining region design using high-capacity machine learning , 2019, bioRxiv.

[42]  Emmanuel J. Candès,et al.  Conformal Prediction Under Covariate Shift , 2019, NeurIPS.

[43]  Frances H. Arnold,et al.  Machine learning-guided channelrhodopsin engineering enables minimally-invasive optogenetics , 2019, Nature Methods.

[44]  Zachary Wu,et al.  Machine learning-assisted directed protein evolution with combinatorial libraries , 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[45]  Jennifer Listgarten,et al.  Conditioning by adaptive sampling for robust design , 2019, ICML.

[46]  Kevin K. Yang,et al.  Machine-learning-guided directed evolution for protein engineering , 2018, Nature Methods.

[47]  Kyunghyun Cho,et al.  Conditional molecular design with deep generative models , 2018, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[48]  Stefano Ermon,et al.  Accurate Uncertainties for Deep Learning Using Calibrated Regression , 2018, ICML.

[49]  Olexandr Isayev,et al.  Deep reinforcement learning for de novo drug design , 2017, Science Advances.

[50]  Alán Aspuru-Guzik,et al.  Automatic Chemical Design Using a Data-Driven Continuous Representation of Molecules , 2016, ACS central science.

[51]  Alessandro Rinaldo,et al.  Distribution-Free Predictive Inference for Regression , 2016, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[52]  Brendan J. Frey,et al.  Generating and designing DNA with deep generative models , 2017, ArXiv.

[53]  F. J. Poelwijk,et al.  Learning the pattern of epistasis linking genotype and phenotype in a protein , 2017, Nature Communications.

[54]  M. Agbandje-McKenna,et al.  Structure-guided evolution of antigenically distinct adeno-associated virus variants for immune evasion , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[55]  Charles Blundell,et al.  Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensembles , 2016, NIPS.

[56]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  Strategic Classification , 2015, ITCS.

[57]  Deniz Dalkara,et al.  In Vivo–Directed Evolution of a New Adeno-Associated Virus for Therapeutic Outer Retinal Gene Delivery from the Vitreous , 2013, Science Translational Medicine.

[58]  Andreas Krause,et al.  Navigating the protein fitness landscape with Gaussian processes , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[59]  Jasper Snoek,et al.  Practical Bayesian Optimization of Machine Learning Algorithms , 2012, NIPS.

[60]  Neil D. Lawrence,et al.  Dataset Shift in Machine Learning , 2009 .

[61]  Klaus-Robert Müller,et al.  Covariate Shift Adaptation by Importance Weighted Cross Validation , 2007, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[62]  F. Arnold,et al.  A diverse family of thermostable cytochrome P450s created by recombination of stabilizing fragments , 2007, Nature Biotechnology.

[63]  John C Whitman,et al.  Improving catalytic function by ProSAR-driven enzyme evolution , 2007, Nature Biotechnology.

[64]  D. Schaffer,et al.  Directed evolution of adeno-associated virus yields enhanced gene delivery vectors , 2006, Nature Biotechnology.

[65]  W. Gasarch,et al.  The Book Review Column 1 Coverage Untyped Systems Simple Types Recursive Types Higher-order Systems General Impression 3 Organization, and Contents of the Book , 2022 .

[66]  Masashi Sugiyama,et al.  Input-dependent estimation of generalization error under covariate shift , 2005 .

[67]  Wadih Arap,et al.  Random peptide libraries displayed on adeno-associated virus to select for targeted gene therapy vectors , 2003, Nature Biotechnology.

[68]  M. Hallek,et al.  In vitro selection of viral vectors with modified tropism: the adeno-associated virus display. , 2003, Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy.

[69]  Peter Auer,et al.  Using Confidence Bounds for Exploitation-Exploration Trade-offs , 2003, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[70]  Harris Papadopoulos,et al.  Inductive Confidence Machines for Regression , 2002, ECML.

[71]  H. Shimodaira,et al.  Improving predictive inference under covariate shift by weighting the log-likelihood function , 2000 .

[72]  Alexander Gammerman,et al.  Machine-Learning Applications of Algorithmic Randomness , 1999, ICML.

[73]  Alexander Gammerman,et al.  Learning by Transduction , 1998, UAI.