Resolving data bias improves generalization in binding affinity prediction.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of computational drug design requires accurate scoring functions to predict binding affinities for protein-ligand interactions. However, train-test data leakage between the PDBbind database and the Comparative Assessment of Scoring Function benchmark datasets has severely inflated the performance metrics of currently available deep-learning-based binding affinity prediction models, leading to overestimation of their generalization capabilities. Here we address this issue by proposing PDBbind CleanSplit, a training dataset curated by a new structure-based filtering algorithm that eliminates train-test data leakage as well as redundancies within the training set. Retraining current top-performing models on CleanSplit caused their benchmark performance to drop substantially, indicating that the performance of existing models is largely driven by data leakage. By contrast, our graph neural network model maintains high benchmark performance when trained on CleanSplit. Leveraging a sparse graph modelling of protein-ligand interactions and transfer learning from language models, our model is able to generalize to strictly independent test datasets.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".