Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Marko Ludaic
dblp:434/1890
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 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% | |
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
3D vision · 50% Graph learning · 50% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Bioinformatics and computational biology › protein structure prediction
protein complex structure prediction |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Evaluating deep learning based structure prediction methods on antibody-antigen complexes · Bioinform. 2026 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › structural biology
protein structure and function |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Evaluating deep learning based structure prediction methods on antibody-antigen complexes · Bioinform. 2026 |
Computer vision › 3D vision
3d reconstruction |
0.3 | 1 | 2026 | Evaluating deep learning based structure prediction methods on antibody-antigen complexes · Bioinform. 2026 |
Machine learning › Graph learning
protein structure prediction |
0.3 | 1 | 2026 | Evaluating deep learning based structure prediction methods on antibody-antigen complexes · Bioinform. 2026 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
pairformer · 2.0massive sampling · 2.0deep learning · 2.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Evaluating deep learning based structure prediction methods on antibody-antigen complexesabstractMOTIVATION: AlphaFold2 significantly improved the prediction of protein complex structures. However, its accuracy is lower for interactions without coevolutionary signals, such as host-pathogen and antibody-antigen interactions. Two strategies have been developed to address this limitation: massive sampling and replacing the evoformer with the pairformer, which does not rely on coevolution, as introduced in AlphaFold3, thereby enabling more structural reasoning by the network. RESULTS: In this study, we benchmark structure prediction methods on unseen antibody-antigen complexes. We found that increased sampling improves the chances of generating a correct protein model, roughly in a log-linear manner. However, the internal quality estimates by AlphaFold often cannot identify the best predicted structures for each target, resulting in a significant loss of performance for the top-ranked protein model compared with the best model. For all methods, a significant challenge remains the identification of the best model. We also show that AlphaFold3 outperforms AlphaFold2, Boltz-1, and Chai-1. Furthermore, AlphaFold3 performance declines significantly for complexes that lack structural similarity to the training set, indicating that it has to some extent learned to detect remote structural similarities. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: All code is available from github.com/samuelfromm/abag-benchmark-set/ and all data from DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17978681. The latter repository also contains the code. Samuel Fromm, Marko Ludaic, Arne Elofsson |
Bioinform. | 2 |