rewirebio.iobenchmarks
Protocol

Telling cognate from shuffled nanobody-antigen pairs by ipTM

All-against-all VHH-antigen pairings are predicted; the best ipTM of 50 samples ranks each pairing, scored by average precision for the cognate pairs.

3 evaluations · 3 results

Overview

All-against-all VHH-antigen pairings are predicted; the best ipTM of 50 samples ranks each pairing, scored by average precision for the cognate pairs.

Consult the linked sources for architecture or protocol details. Missing evidence is not evidence of a missing capability.

3 recorded evaluations, 3 metric rows. A comparison chart has not yet been validated for these results. The table retains the individual findings and their sources.

View coverage and remaining gaps across all benchmarks

Results

Results are available, but no reviewed comparison panel is linked in this release.

All evaluations

3 evaluations · 3 results. Different protocols are not a single leaderboard.

Filter evaluations

Applied filters: All linked evaluations

Exact evaluated configurations and original reported results
Tested configurationProtocol and datasetFindingEvidence and details
Configuration: AlphaFold3 3.0.1, 50 diffusion samples, seed 1, built-in data pipeline (Smorodina et al. 2026)Protocol: Telling cognate from shuffled nanobody-antigen pairs by ipTM
Dataset: Smorodina et al. 2026 all-against-all VHH-antigen pairing matrix (91 unique PDB entries)
0.187 average-precision
unitless · higher

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

AF3 on Telling cognate from shuffled nanobody-antigen pairs by ipTM (Smorodina et al. 2026)

structural-20261009-protocol-smorodina2026-vhh-cognate-vs-shuffled

Aggregation: Not reported

Structural Plausibility Without Binding Specificity: Limits of AI-Based Antibody-Antigen Structure Prediction Confidence Scores · Results P11, 'AP = 0.187' for AF3
Configuration: Boltz-2 via Boltz CLI v2.2.0, 50 diffusion samples, seed 42, MSA server (Smorodina et al. 2026)Protocol: Telling cognate from shuffled nanobody-antigen pairs by ipTM
Dataset: Smorodina et al. 2026 all-against-all VHH-antigen pairing matrix (91 unique PDB entries)
0.026 average-precision
unitless · higher

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

Boltz-2 on Telling cognate from shuffled nanobody-antigen pairs by ipTM (Smorodina et al. 2026)

structural-20261009-protocol-smorodina2026-vhh-cognate-vs-shuffled

Aggregation: Not reported

Structural Plausibility Without Binding Specificity: Limits of AI-Based Antibody-Antigen Structure Prediction Confidence Scores · Results P11, 'AP = 0.026' for Boltz-2
Configuration: Chai-1 0.6.1, 5 trunk x 10 diffusion samples, seed 42, ESM embeddings without MSAs (Smorodina et al. 2026)Protocol: Telling cognate from shuffled nanobody-antigen pairs by ipTM
Dataset: Smorodina et al. 2026 all-against-all VHH-antigen pairing matrix (91 unique PDB entries)
0.067 average-precision
unitless · higher

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source

Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible

Independent external evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

Chai-1 on Telling cognate from shuffled nanobody-antigen pairs by ipTM (Smorodina et al. 2026)

structural-20261009-protocol-smorodina2026-vhh-cognate-vs-shuffled

Aggregation: Not reported

Structural Plausibility Without Binding Specificity: Limits of AI-Based Antibody-Antigen Structure Prediction Confidence Scores · Results P11, 'AP = 0.067' for Chai-1

Source checking is not independent reproduction. Release 2026-10-10-6e93f504adfc.

Methods and evaluation design

Procedure, tasks and evaluated configurations

Recorded evaluations

Each evaluation records what was tested and under which conditions.

Baseline coverage

Reference methods help show what a model adds beyond simple controls. We track a null control and a conventional method for each protocol.

0 of 2 active baseline roles have published Rewire measurements in this release. Measurements on a selected protocol do not establish coverage of an entire suite.

No execution recipe linked to this protocol. Recipe availability does not establish a completed evaluation.

External evaluations
3

Literature evidence is not a Rewire measurement. Executed but unpublished runs and private review status are not included.

Null control

Proposed control: requires review

Select a task-valid null control after reviewing inputs and metric

Protocol-specific applicability, permitted inputs, access, split, evaluator and execution requirements need review before implementation or execution.

This is a suggested selection rule, not a validated method or a measured score.

Conventional reference

Proposed control: requires review

Select an upstream conventional reference after reviewing the full protocol

Protocol-specific applicability, permitted inputs, access, split, evaluator and execution requirements need review before implementation or execution.

This is a suggested selection rule, not a validated method or a measured score.

Protocol coverage CSV (gzip) · Model evaluation matrix (gzip) · Source table (gzip) · Release and checksums (gzip)

Coverage is derived from release 2026-10-10-6e93f504adfc. Source citations describe the original records; they do not validate an unreviewed baseline proposal. No results have been generated by this audit.

Run instructions

No runnable recipe has been reviewed for this protocol. Dataset access, model requirements, licences and compute requirements must be checked against its sources before execution.

Strengths, limitations and unresolved questions

Evidence

Source checking verifies the cited claim or transcription. It does not establish independent reproduction.

Evidence table

Inspect claims, sources and review details

Trace each statement to its source and review. A context-only reference supports the record generally; it does not verify an individual field. Source checking does not reproduce an experiment.

One row per statement and cited source. Multiple citations are not independent evaluations. Shared locators are labelled explicitly.

0 evidence rows matching the loaded filters

Claims, original sources and review scope · Release 2026-10-10-6e93f504adfc
Property and statementOriginal source and locationReview and provenance

No evidence rows match these filters. Choose another scope or clear the search.

Sources and history

Release 2026-10-10-6e93f504adfc · Record review: source checked

1 source records and release historyDownload this release (gzip)
Technical metadata and extraction receipts

Stable ID: structural-20261009-protocol-smorodina2026-vhh-cognate-vs-shuffled

areas
proteins-complexes
contexts
research
protocol
Each VHH is paired with each antigen over 91 unique PDB entries and predicted with 50 samples per pairing. Each pairing is scored by its interface confidence (ipTM). Precision-recall over all pairings, with the cognate pairing as the positive, summarised as average precision.
version
Smorodina et al. 2026 bioRxiv v1, Results P8 to P11, Figure 2B
metric
average-precision
metric direction
higher
unit
unitless
metric definition
Area under the precision-recall curve (average precision) for ranking cognate pairs above shuffled pairs by ipTM. The random baseline equals the positive prevalence, printed as about 0.011.
limitations
Negatives are shuffled pairings assumed to be non-binders; none was tested, and some may bind.; Ranks pairings by ipTM; it measures whether confidence separates observed from assumed-absent interactions, not structural accuracy.; Nanobody (VHH)-antigen complexes only; results do not transfer to conventional antibodies or other complex classes.; The set mixes systems inside and outside each tool's training data (AF3 30 of 106 in training, Chai-1 25, Boltz-2 64); the printed values are over all systems, so they are not post-cutoff results, and Boltz-2's are the most exposed.; Preprint, not peer reviewed. Supplementary tables were not read.; No uncertainty is printed for these values.; The dataset paragraph (P62) says post-October 2021 depositions were kept, 'corresponding to the earliest training cutoff among the evaluated tools (Boltz-2)'. The methods (P76) give Chai-1 about 12 January 2021, AF3 about 30 September 2021 and Boltz-2 about 1 June 2023, so Chai-1 is the earliest and Boltz-2 the latest, and the October 2021 date matches AF3. The per-tool train and test counts follow the methods, and no printed value depends on the mis-stated sentence.; Preprint, not peer reviewed.; The abstract gives 11,342 shuffled pairings; Results P8 gives 11,130 (106 squared minus 106). Neither figure is used in a stored value; the scored counts come from Results P11.
source locator
Results P8 to P11; Figure 2
Related records

Suggest a correction