Most software systems today are configurable. As a consequence, predicting performance is inherently challenging due to the sheer number of configurations exhibiting individual performance variations. When predicting the performance of unseen configurations, it is imperative to know how reliable such predictions are. Bayesian methods have been shown to be able to quantify the uncertainty in their estimates, but require prior information about performance distributions and, more importantly, are constrained in their learning technique, effectively limiting their practical applicability. Conformal prediction, an entirely novel approach to uncertainty quantification in this area, augments existing learning algorithms via a statistical post-hoc analysis. This allows us to provide uncertainty estimates even for point-estimate algorithms, such as random forests or deep neural networks. The goal of this study is to evaluate how assumptions of conformal predictions regarding sample size and distribution, as well as the heterogeneity of learning algorithms, affect their applicability to software performance prediction. We conduct a comprehensive study comparing four conformal prediction variants against P4, the current standard for uncertainty-aware performance prediction, analyzing accuracy, scalability, and uncertainty quantification. Our results show that conformal prediction consistently outperforms the state of the art across six out of eight real world scenarios, producing correct confidence intervals that are 46–75 % narrower, and thus more certain. Notably, conformal prediction can be used to enrich existing techniques, with post-hoc uncertainty quantification in a plug and play fashion.

@inproceedings{paperbot12386,
  title = {Assessing Uncertainty in Performance Modeling: Conformal Prediction vs. Bayesian Regression},
  author = {Stefan Jahns and Johannes Dorn and Max Weber and Sven Apel and Norbert Siegmund},
  booktitle = {ASE},
  year = {2026},
  doi = {10.1145/3832783.3837425}
}