Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.

Guy Durant

dblp:389/2772 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
0009-0007-3249-3793ORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Bioinformatics and computational biology › molecular informatics › molecular modeling › molecular docking
machine learning scoring function
0.912025
Robustly interrogating machine learning-based scoring functions: what are they learning? · Bioinform. 2025
Bioinformatics and computational biology › structural bioinformatics
protein-ligand binding
0.912025
Robustly interrogating machine learning-based scoring functions: what are they learning? · Bioinform. 2025
Bioinformatics and computational biology › molecular informatics › molecular modeling › molecular docking
scoring function evaluation
0.912025
Robustly interrogating machine learning-based scoring functions: what are they learning? · Bioinform. 2025

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

machine learning · 0.9dataset bias analysis · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Robustly interrogating machine learning-based scoring functions: what are they learning?
abstract
MOTIVATION: Machine learning-based scoring functions (MLBSFs) have been found to exhibit inconsistent performance on different benchmarks and be prone to learning dataset bias. For the field to develop MLBSFs that learn a generalizable understanding of physics, a more rigorous understanding of how they perform is required. RESULTS: In this work, we compared the performance of a diverse set of popular MLBSFs (RFScore, SIGN, OnionNet-2, Pafnucy, and PointVS) to our proposed baseline models that can only learn dataset biases on a range of benchmarks. We found that these baseline models were competitive in accuracy to these MLBSFs in almost all proposed benchmarks, indicating these models only learn dataset biases. Our tests and provided platform, ToolBoxSF, will enable researchers to robustly interrogate MLBSF performance and determine the effect of dataset biases on their predictions. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: https://github.com/guydurant/toolboxsf.
Guy Durant, Fergus Boyles, Kristian Birchall, Brian D. Marsden, Charlotte M. Deane
Bioinform.1