ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2026
Deciphering key factors of active learning performance in biomolecular design.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationEmploying machine learning (ML) to efficiently design biomolecules has become an emerging trend in genetic engineering. Active learning (AL) algorithms, as scalable approaches for ML-guided discovery, can automatically identify promising samples for function (i.e. fitness) optimization, and have therefore attracted growing interest across scientific domains. However, applying AL in genetic engineering presents several challenges. The regulatory patterns between sequence and fitness are highly complex, noisy, and sparse, making the existing evaluation of AL algorithm efficiency unreliable. Therefore, a comprehensive benchmark and thorough investigation into the key determinants of AL performance are urgently required to resolve these challenges.
resultsWe created a benchmark across multiple large-scale libraries of proteins and DNA regulatory sequences, evaluating uncertainty quantification (UQ) algorithms on metrics including calibration and accuracy, demonstrating the robustness and generality of ensemble-based algorithms. Moreover, we systematically assessed the efficiency of existing sampling strategies for fitness optimization. Our results show that no single sampling strategy is universally optimal across datasets, although greedy iterative strategies perform well in many practical scenarios. Finally, we evaluated the factors influencing optimization efficiency, and found that optimization efficiency is mainly determined by the choice of initial settings, distribution sparsity, and sequence similarity in high-fitness regions, rather than by the specific AL algorithm. Based on this, we proposed two quantifiable metrics to interpret the strategy performance and provide a practical reference for strategy selection. These findings offer valuable insights for the implementation of AL pipelines in biomolecular sequence design scenarios. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The source code and supporting datasets used in this work are openly available on GitHub at https://github.com/WangLabTHU/biomolecule-al-decipher and have been archived on Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19661002.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.