arXiv AI

TopU-LBVS: A Realistic Multi Target Benchmark for Ligand Based Virtual Screening

TopU-LBVS is a new multi‑target benchmark for ligand‑based virtual screening that addresses shortcomings of existing datasets by using hard‑negative decoys and a fixed 1:40 active‑to‑decoy ratio. It covers 93 protein targets across seven classes, provides three evaluation protocols (full, low‑data, and mini), and includes curated ChEMBL‑35 bioactivity data with property‑matched, structurally similar decoys. The benchmark demonstrates that performance drops sharply when moving from random‑decoy to hard‑negative evaluation, and it releases data, splits, code, and baseline implementations for reproducible comparison.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 24

TopU-LBVS: A Realistic Multi Target Benchmark for Ligand Based Virtual Screening

TopU-LBVS is a new multi‑target benchmark for ligand‑based virtual screening that addresses shortcomings of previous datasets by using hard‑negative decoys and a fixed 1:40 active‑to‑decoy ratio. It covers 93 protein targets across seven classes, provides three evaluation protocols (full, low‑data, and mini), and includes curated ChEMBL‑35 bioactivity data with property‑matched, structurally similar decoys to reduce shortcut learning. The benchmark comes with released data, fixed splits, evaluation code, and baseline implementations for reproducible comparison of LBVS and molecular representation methods.

arXiv Machine Learning
3d ago

Interpretable-by-Design Descriptor Portfolios Match a 2048-Dimensional Foundation Embedding on Low-Data Molecular Assays

The study evaluates whether a portfolio of compact, semantically named descriptor blocks can match the performance of a 2048‑dimensional CheMeleon embedding in low‑data molecular assays. Using a fixed 11‑dimensional physicochemical base and greedily adding provenance‑screened blocks, the portfolio achieves a mean test AUC of 0.762 across nine ADME/Tox assays, comparable to CheMeleon’s 0.764 and better than Mordred’s 0.756. The results meet a predeclared pooled parity threshold but not all per‑assay thresholds, and further analysis confirms the competitiveness of the auditable representation while highlighting unresolved assay‑level differences.

By Yiqi Yao, Miquel Duran-Frigola