Decomposing the Generalization Gap in PROTAC Activity Prediction: Variance Attribution and the Inter-Laboratory Ceiling
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Machine-learning predictors of biochemical activity often exhibit large random-split-to-leave-one-target-out generalisation gaps that have been documented but not decomposed. We frame this as an evaluation-science question and use targeted protein degradation as the empirical test bed. PROTACs (proteolysis-targeting chimeras) are heterobifunctional small molecules that induce targeted protein degradation, with more than forty candidates currently in clinical trials; published predictors report AUROC of 0.85 to 0.91 under random-split cross-validation, while the leave-one-target-out (LOTO) protocol of Ribes et al. reduces performance to approximately 0.67. Random splits reward within-target interpolation, whereas LOTO measures the novel-target prediction that de-novo design depends on. We decompose this gap and identify inter-laboratory measurement variance as the dominant component, anchored by a within-target cross-laboratory cascade bounding the inter-laboratory contribution at 0.124 AUROC, well above the 0.05 contribution from binarisation-threshold choice. Across eight published architectures and ESM-2 protein language models up to 3B parameters, LOTO AUROC plateaus near 0.67, with a comparable plateau under SMILES-level deduplication; a 21-dimensional 2000-trial hyperparameter optimisation cannot break this ceiling, and the rank-1 single-seed configuration regresses by 0.161 AUROC under multi-seed validation, matching a closed-form selection-bias prediction (Bailey and Lopez de Prado, 2014). Few-shot k=5 stratified per-target retraining combined with ADMET features lifts 65-target LOTO AUROC from 0.668 to 0.7050, and post-hoc Platt scaling recovers raw output to within the 0.05 well-calibrated threshold. We release PROTAC-Bench (10,748 measurements, 173 targets, 65 LOTO folds), the variance-decomposition framework, the per-target calibration protocol, and the evaluation code.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 54 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 May 2026.
Builds on
18 of 54 references.
References · 18
- 2020Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networkscited by 1,969
- 2019Can You Trust Your Model's Uncertainty? Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty Under Dataset Shiftcited by 1,287
- 2020In Search of Lost Domain Generalizationcited by 1,054
- 2022Fine-Tuning can Distort Pretrained Features and Underperform Out-of-Distributioncited by 739
- 2019A Closer Look at Few-shot Classificationcited by 684
- 2019Quantifying the Carbon Emissions of Machine Learningcited by 521
- 2020Underspecification Presents Challenges for Credibility in Modern Machine Learningcited by 496
- 2020Rethinking Few-Shot Image Classification: a Good Embedding Is All You Need?cited by 437
- 2021Accounting for Variance in Machine Learning Benchmarkscited by 201
- 2015External Validity: From Do-Calculus to Transportability Across Populationscited by 75
- 2024A Closer Look at AUROC and AUPRC under Class Imbalancecited by 57
- 2020Selective Classification Can Magnify Disparities Across Groupscited by 36
6 more
- 2024Training Compute-Optimal Protein Language Modelscited by 12
- 2023Lo-Hi: Practical ML Drug Discovery Benchmarkcited by 10
- 2025Datasheets Aren't Enough: DataRubrics for Automated Quality Metrics and Accountabilitycited by 6
- 2024MOTIVE: A Drug-Target Interaction Graph For Inductive Link Predictioncited by 5
- 2024WelQrate: Defining the Gold Standard in Small Molecule Drug Discovery Benchmarkingcited by 5
- 2025SE(3)-Equivariant Ternary Complex Prediction Towards Target Protein Degradationcited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.