The Need for Continuing Blinded Pose- and Activity Prediction Benchmarks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational tools for structure-based drug design (SBDD) are widely used in drug discovery and can provide valuable insights to advance projects in an efficient and cost-effective manner. However, despite the importance of SBDD to the field, the underlying methodologies and techniques have many limitations. In particular, binding pose and activity predictions (P-AP) are still not consistently reliable. We strongly believe that a limiting factor is the lack of a widely accepted and established community benchmarking process that independently assesses the performance and drives the development of methods, similar to the CASP benchmarking challenge for protein structure prediction. Here, we provide an overview of P-AP, unblinded benchmarking data sets, and blinded benchmarking initiatives (concluded and ongoing) and offer a perspective on learnings and the future of the field. To accelerate a breakthrough on the development of novel P-AP methods, it is necessary for the community to establish and support a long-term benchmark challenge that provides nonbiased training/test/validation sets, a systematic independent validation, and a forum for scientific discussions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".