Benchmarking study demonstrates activity landscape roughness anticipates machine learning reliability in environmental chemicals, indicating an early diagnostic for risk assessment models.
Machine learning increasingly supports chemical risk assessment under REACH, TSCA, and OECD QSAR frameworks, but random-split performance can be optimistic for structurally novel chemicals. We ask whether task difficulty can be anticipated before model training. EnvMolBench spans 45 datasets, 114,500+ end point-specific records (55,984 unique structures), and 6500+ model–dataset combinations from 13 algorithms and 6 representation categories. Training-set activity landscape roughness, quantified by nearest-neighbor disagreement rate (classification) or the Structure–Activity Landscape Index (regression), was associated with best-observed performance (Spearman ρ = −0.71, 95% CI [−0.94, −0.26], p = 0.0009 for classification; ρ = −0.47, 95% CI [−0.81, −0.04], p = 0.019 for regression), surviving family-wide FDR correction for classification (q = 0.0085) but not regression (q = 0.063). On high-roughness end points, excluding activity-cliff compounds post hoc raised AUC by a mean 0.134 and lowered standardized RMSE by 0.067, whereas removing cliffs from training did not help. The three evaluated pretrained models did not outperform well-tuned baselines on the ten roughest end points. Roughness therefore provides an empirical, representation-relative diagnostic of achievable performance rather than a fundamental ceiling, motivating a workflow linking it to method selection, applicability-domain assessment, and conformal calibration. EnvMolBench, its datasets, splits, and baselines are released openly.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: