Sari la conținut

Română · beta. Traducerea a fost făcută automat și este încă în curs de revizuire. Citește pagina în engleză

perspectiva aiqbenchMachine learning

analiza aiqbench

This study demonstrates that model rankings for drug-target affinity prediction are highly sensitive to the specific type of distribution shift used during evaluation, particularly when extrapolating to new protein targets. The findings suggest that benchmarking protocols must align closely with anticipated deployment scenarios rather than relying on standard random splits, as performance gains observed in training data may not hold under biologically motivated OOD conditions.
Sursă care acoperăarXiv
Ce este aceastaLectura unui model asupra articolului și a acoperirii conexe, scrisă pentru aiqbench. Nu sunt cuvintele publicației.

Beyond Random Splits: Evaluating Drug-Target Affinity Models Under Chemically and Biologically Motivated Distribution Shifts Copy

arXiv2 min de cititArticolul și perspectiva sunt în engleză.

arXiv:2610.03456v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Drug-target affinity (DTA) prediction is widely used to prioritize candidate compounds before costly experimental screening. DTA models are often compared under a single data split, even though deployment may require extrapolation to new chemical series, new protein targets, or both. We ask whether the distribution shift used for evaluation changes which architecture appears best. We curate 718,800 unique drug-protein pairs from the ChEMBL and BindingDB datasets. We compare a Morgan-fingerprint + protein-CNN baseline with 12 controlled architectures that combine four drug representations with three ESM-2 interaction modes. Mean validation RMSE increases from 0.950 and 0.945 under scaffold and fingerprint-cluster OOD to 1.299 and 1.321 under protein-cluster and dual OOD. Model rankings are similar across the two chemical shifts (tau = 0.79), but agreement with scaffold OOD falls under protein OOD (tau = 0.39) and reverses under dual OOD (tau = -0.55). Held-out evaluation, repeated seeds, group-aware bootstrap analysis, and a size-matched control support the same conclusion: architecture selection depends on the form of extrapolation, not only on average error or training-set size. DTA benchmarks should therefore match the chemical and target shifts expected at deployment.

Authors:Minjae Chung, Clara Li, Malar Paavai Muthukumaran, Shaunna Wang, Aniket Ramkrishnan Iyer, Shaun Qien Yeau Tan, Harinishree Sathu, Micky C. Nnamdi, J. Ben Tamo, Benoit Louis Marteau, May Dongmei Wang

Abstract:Drug-target affinity (DTA) prediction is widely used to prioritize candidate compounds before costly experimental screening. DTA models are often compared under a single data split, even though deployment may require extrapolation to new chemical series, new protein targets, or both. We ask whether the distribution shift used for evaluation changes which architecture appears best. We curate 718,800 unique drug-protein pairs from the ChEMBL and BindingDB datasets. We compare a Morgan-fingerprint + protein-CNN baseline with 12 controlled architectures that combine four drug representations with three ESM-2 interaction modes. Mean validation RMSE increases from 0.950 and 0.945 under scaffold and fingerprint-cluster OOD to 1.299 and 1.321 under protein-cluster and dual OOD. Model rankings are similar across the two chemical shifts (tau = 0.79), but agreement with scaffold OOD falls under protein OOD (tau = 0.39) and reverses under dual OOD (tau = -0.55). Held-out evaluation, repeated seeds, group-aware bootstrap analysis, and a size-matched control support the same conclusion: architecture selection depends on the form of extrapolation, not only on average error or training-set size. DTA benchmarks should therefore match the chemical and target shifts expected at deployment.

Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2610.03456 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2610.03456v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.03456 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 233 cuvinte

Subiecte conexe