Evaluates protein language model architectures for predicting binding affinity in multi-chain protein-protein complexes. It probes how well different architectural designs capture inter-chain interactions compared to simple sequence or embedding concatenation. Use when the user wants to benchmark on PPB-Affinity, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Spearman ρ.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill ppb-affinity-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Ppb Affinity Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-ppb-affinity-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: ppb-affinity-eval
description: Evaluates protein language model architectures for predicting binding affinity in multi-chain protein-protein complexes. It probes how well different architectural designs capture inter-chain interactions compared to simple sequence or embedding concatenation. Use when the user wants to benchmark on PPB-Affinity, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Spearman ρ.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2505.20036
bibtex_key: alsamkary2025beyond
confidence: high
---
# ppb-affinity-eval
> Beyond Simple Concatenation: Fairly Assessing PLM Architectures for Multi-Chain Protein-Protein Interactions Prediction — Alsamkary et al. (2025) (arXiv:2505.20036, 2025)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates protein language model architectures for predicting binding affinity in multi-chain protein-protein complexes. It probes how well different architectural designs capture inter-chain interactions compared to simple sequence or embedding concatenation.
## Datasets
- **PPB-Affinity** — total ?; splits: val (-1), test (-1); repo https://github.com/Proteinea/ppiseq
## Metrics
- `Spearman ρ` **(primary)** — range: [-1, 1]
- Spearman rank correlation coefficient between predicted and true binding affinities.
- `Pearson r` — range: [-1, 1]
- Pearson linear correlation coefficient between predicted and true binding affinities.
- `RMSE (pKd)` — range: [0, ∞)
- Root mean squared error between predicted and true pKd values, calculated as sqrt(mean((y_pred - y_true)^2)).
## Input / output format
**Input**: Paired protein sequences representing ligand and receptor chains for multi-chain complexes.
**Output**: A single continuous scalar value representing the predicted binding affinity (pKd).
## Scoring recipe
```python
import numpy as np
from scipy.stats import spearmanr, pearsonr
def compute_metrics(y_true, y_pred):
spearman_rho, _ = spearmanr(y_true, y_pred)
pearson_r, _ = pearsonr(y_true, y_pred)
rmse = np.sqrt(np.mean((y_true - y_pred) ** 2))
return spearman_rho, pearson_r, rmse
```
## Common pitfalls
- Data leakage can occur if sequence identity between splits exceeds 30%; the protocol enforces a strict ≤30% identity split.
- Simple concatenation (SC) of all chains into one sequence with a single EOS token obscures ligand-receptor boundaries, diluting inter-chain interaction signals.
- Full fine-tuning of certain PLMs (e.g., ESM3-SM-Open) can cause training instability with exploding hidden states, requiring careful learning rate and normalization adjustments.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> Metrics (mean ± standard deviation, 3 seeds): Spearman $
ho$ , Pearson r, and RMSE $(pK_d)$ . PAD: Pooled attention addition; HP: Hierarchical pooling
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{alsamkary2025beyond,
title={Beyond Simple Concatenation: Fairly Assessing PLM Architectures for Multi-Chain Protein-Protein Interactions Prediction},
author={Alsamkary et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2505.20036}
}
```
- arXiv: 2505.20036
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!