Distribution-Free Conformal Prediction for Steel Fatigue Strength: Marginal Validity Is Not Enough

Abstract

Predicting fatigue failure in steel components experimentally is costly because it requires testing across multiple compositions and processing conditions. This has spurred research on data-driven prediction models. Studies using the NIMS MatNavi steel fatigue dataset often report high point-prediction accuracy but rely on aggregate error metrics, leaving uncertainty about the reliability of individual predictions and whether accuracy is consistent across the fatigue-strength spectrum. This paper is the first to apply conformal prediction to steel fatigue strength, comparing five interval-construction methods across 50 independent data splits and distinguishing marginal coverage from coverage within specific sub-regions of the predicted property. A gradient-boosting point model achieves an R^2 of 0.976 +/- 0.009 and a mean absolute error of 18.3 +/- 2.3 MPa. Split-conformal prediction provides valid marginal coverage (0.918) but drops to 0.755 in the highest-strength quartile, where design margins are most critical, a pattern also observed with a Gaussian process baseline. A cross-fitted, normalized conformal method restores near-uniform coverage across all quartiles (0.869-0.938) without a significant increase in interval width, by scaling the interval based on a cross-fitted estimate of local prediction difficulty rather than using a single global width. Diagnostic analysis traces the residual gap in the highest-strength quartile to elevated residual variance (2.7x the pooled Q1-Q3 level) rather than a systematic bias, situating the shortfall against a proven distribution-free limit on exact conditional coverage. Marginal coverage claims for ML-based fatigue-strength predictions can conceal systematic unreliability precisely where engineering decisions are most risky; therefore, conditional coverage should be routinely assessed alongside marginal coverage.