formula-ranking-accuracy-evaluation
Summary
Evaluate the ranking quality of predicted chemical formulas and adduct assignments by computing top-k accuracy metrics (top-1, top-5, top-10) on held-out test spectra with annotated ground-truth formulas. This skill verifies whether a formula inference model (e.g., MIST-CF) correctly places the true molecular formula within the top-k candidates ranked by model confidence.
When to use
Use this skill after training or fine-tuning a chemical formula transformer model on annotated tandem MS/MS spectra, when you need to measure whether the model's ranked formula candidates match ground truth. Apply it on a held-out test set to avoid overfitting bias, and especially when extending the model to a new ionisation mode (e.g., negative-mode adducts) or adduct type where no prior validation exists.
When NOT to use
- Test set is not held-out or overlaps with training data—this will produce inflated accuracy estimates and fail to detect overfitting.
- Annotated formulas in test set are absent or ambiguous—ground truth is required to define a hit.
- Model has not been trained or fine-tuned on the target ionisation mode or adduct type—baseline accuracy will be near zero and not interpretable as a real performance limitation.
Inputs
- held-out test set of annotated MS/MS spectra (MGF format or equivalent) with ground-truth molecular formulas and adduct assignments
- trained formula inference model (checkpoint or serialized neural network weights)
- ranked formula candidate lists output by the model, with confidence scores or energy-based model scores
Outputs
- metrics table with top-1, top-5, and top-10 formula ranking accuracy per adduct type
- accuracy scores aggregated across all test spectra and stratified by adduct class
- failure analysis or confusion matrix identifying which formulas or adducts are most frequently misranked
How to apply
Split your annotated MS/MS spectra into training and held-out test sets. Run the formula inference model (e.g., MIST-CF) on each test spectrum to generate a ranked list of candidate formulas with associated adduct assignments. For each spectrum, check whether the annotated ground-truth formula appears in the top-1, top-5, and top-10 positions of the ranked output. Compute the fraction of spectra where the true formula was recovered at each rank cutoff, storing results in a metrics table indexed by adduct type (e.g., [M-H]−, [M+Cl]−, [M+FA]−) to enable cross-adduct comparison and identify performance bottlenecks.
Related tools
- MIST-CF (formula transformer model that generates ranked candidate formulas and adduct assignments from MS/MS spectra; primary inference engine being evaluated) — https://github.com/samgoldman97/mist-cf
- SCARF (provides sinusoidal formula embeddings used as input representation in MIST-CF formula transformer, maintaining consistency across formula tokenization)
- SIRIUS (used for deterministic formula enumeration (SIRIUS decomp) to generate candidate formula lists; baseline method for comparison in benchmarking experiments) — https://bio.informatik.uni-jena.de/software/sirius/
Evaluation signals
- Top-1 accuracy should be >0 for each adduct type; very low values (<5%) indicate model underfitting or data preprocessing errors.
- Top-1 accuracy should be substantially higher than random baseline (which depends on formula candidate space size); if top-1 ≈ 1/|candidate set|, the model is not learning.
- Accuracy should improve monotonically: top-1 ≤ top-5 ≤ top-10; violation indicates output ranking inconsistency or data leakage.
- Performance should be stratified and comparable across adduct types if training data is balanced; large disparities (e.g., >10% gap between [M-H]− and [M+Cl]−) suggest adduct-specific underfitting or dataset skew.
- Metrics table should be fully populated with no missing or NaN values; check for incomplete predictions or filtering that silently drops test spectra.
Limitations
- Model-dependent performance: ranking accuracy reflects both the formula inference architecture and the quality of MS/MS spectra preprocessing (noise removal, intensity normalization); poor spectra will yield artificially low accuracy even with a well-trained model.
- Adduct assumption: evaluation assumes the true adduct type is known and present in the model's tokenization layer; if an observed spectrum is [M+Na]+ but the model only considers [M+H]+ and [M+NH4]+, accuracy will be zero regardless of correct molecular formula rank.
- Test set annotation quality: errors or ambiguities in ground-truth formula or adduct labels introduce noise; high-confidence annotations from validated repositories (MassIVE, MetaboLights) are essential.
- Generalization gap: models trained on NPLIB1 or NIST20 may show degraded accuracy on out-of-distribution spectra (e.g., different instruments, resolution, or compound classes); separate evaluation on prospective datasets (CASMI 2022) recommended to assess real-world utility.
Evidence
- [other] Evaluate the fine-tuned model on a held-out negative-mode test set by computing top-1, top-5, and top-10 formula ranking accuracy: "Evaluate the fine-tuned model on a held-out negative-mode test set by computing top-1, top-5, and top-10 formula ranking accuracy."
- [intro] MIST-CF ranks chemical formula and adduct assignments for an unknown mass spectrum using an end-to-end energy based modeling approach, without referencing any spectrum databases: "MIST-CF ranks chemical formula and adduct assignments for an unknown mass spectrum using an end-to-end energy based modeling approach, without referencing any spectrum databases"
- [other] Compile results in a metrics table comparing performance across negative adduct types: "Compile results in a metrics table comparing performance across negative adduct types."
- [intro] MIST-CF considers multiple adduct types beyond [M+H]+ (still only positive mode): "Considering multiple adduct types beyond [M+H]+ (still only positive mode)"
- [intro] Instead of computing fragmentation trees, MIST-CF adopts a formula transformer neural network architecture and learns in a data dependent fashion: "Instead of computing fragmentation trees, MIST-CF adopts a formula transformer neural network architecture and learns in a data dependent fashion"
1---2name: formula-ranking-accuracy-evaluation3description: Use when use this skill after training or fine-tuning a chemical formula transformer model on annotated tandem MS/MS spectra, when you need to measure whether the model's ranked formula candidates match ground truth.4license: CC-BY-4.05---67# formula-ranking-accuracy-evaluation89## Summary1011Evaluate the ranking quality of predicted chemical formulas and adduct assignments by computing top-k accuracy metrics (top-1, top-5, top-10) on held-out test spectra with annotated ground-truth formulas. This skill verifies whether a formula inference model (e.g., MIST-CF) correctly places the true molecular formula within the top-k candidates ranked by model confidence.1213## When to use1415Use this skill after training or fine-tuning a chemical formula transformer model on annotated tandem MS/MS spectra, when you need to measure whether the model's ranked formula candidates match ground truth. Apply it on a held-out test set to avoid overfitting bias, and especially when extending the model to a new ionisation mode (e.g., negative-mode adducts) or adduct type where no prior validation exists.1617## When NOT to use1819- Test set is not held-out or overlaps with training data—this will produce inflated accuracy estimates and fail to detect overfitting.20- Annotated formulas in test set are absent or ambiguous—ground truth is required to define a hit.21- Model has not been trained or fine-tuned on the target ionisation mode or adduct type—baseline accuracy will be near zero and not interpretable as a real performance limitation.2223## Inputs2425- held-out test set of annotated MS/MS spectra (MGF format or equivalent) with ground-truth molecular formulas and adduct assignments26- trained formula inference model (checkpoint or serialized neural network weights)27- ranked formula candidate lists output by the model, with confidence scores or energy-based model scores2829## Outputs3031- metrics table with top-1, top-5, and top-10 formula ranking accuracy per adduct type32- accuracy scores aggregated across all test spectra and stratified by adduct class33- failure analysis or confusion matrix identifying which formulas or adducts are most frequently misranked3435## How to apply3637Split your annotated MS/MS spectra into training and held-out test sets. Run the formula inference model (e.g., MIST-CF) on each test spectrum to generate a ranked list of candidate formulas with associated adduct assignments. For each spectrum, check whether the annotated ground-truth formula appears in the top-1, top-5, and top-10 positions of the ranked output. Compute the fraction of spectra where the true formula was recovered at each rank cutoff, storing results in a metrics table indexed by adduct type (e.g., [M-H]−, [M+Cl]−, [M+FA]−) to enable cross-adduct comparison and identify performance bottlenecks.3839## Related tools4041- **MIST-CF** (formula transformer model that generates ranked candidate formulas and adduct assignments from MS/MS spectra; primary inference engine being evaluated) — https://github.com/samgoldman97/mist-cf42- **SCARF** (provides sinusoidal formula embeddings used as input representation in MIST-CF formula transformer, maintaining consistency across formula tokenization)43- **SIRIUS** (used for deterministic formula enumeration (SIRIUS decomp) to generate candidate formula lists; baseline method for comparison in benchmarking experiments) — https://bio.informatik.uni-jena.de/software/sirius/4445## Evaluation signals4647- Top-1 accuracy should be >0 for each adduct type; very low values (<5%) indicate model underfitting or data preprocessing errors.48- Top-1 accuracy should be substantially higher than random baseline (which depends on formula candidate space size); if top-1 ≈ 1/|candidate set|, the model is not learning.49- Accuracy should improve monotonically: top-1 ≤ top-5 ≤ top-10; violation indicates output ranking inconsistency or data leakage.50- Performance should be stratified and comparable across adduct types if training data is balanced; large disparities (e.g., >10% gap between [M-H]− and [M+Cl]−) suggest adduct-specific underfitting or dataset skew.51- Metrics table should be fully populated with no missing or NaN values; check for incomplete predictions or filtering that silently drops test spectra.5253## Limitations5455- Model-dependent performance: ranking accuracy reflects both the formula inference architecture and the quality of MS/MS spectra preprocessing (noise removal, intensity normalization); poor spectra will yield artificially low accuracy even with a well-trained model.56- Adduct assumption: evaluation assumes the true adduct type is known and present in the model's tokenization layer; if an observed spectrum is [M+Na]+ but the model only considers [M+H]+ and [M+NH4]+, accuracy will be zero regardless of correct molecular formula rank.57- Test set annotation quality: errors or ambiguities in ground-truth formula or adduct labels introduce noise; high-confidence annotations from validated repositories (MassIVE, MetaboLights) are essential.58- Generalization gap: models trained on NPLIB1 or NIST20 may show degraded accuracy on out-of-distribution spectra (e.g., different instruments, resolution, or compound classes); separate evaluation on prospective datasets (CASMI 2022) recommended to assess real-world utility.5960## Evidence6162- [other] Evaluate the fine-tuned model on a held-out negative-mode test set by computing top-1, top-5, and top-10 formula ranking accuracy: "Evaluate the fine-tuned model on a held-out negative-mode test set by computing top-1, top-5, and top-10 formula ranking accuracy."63- [intro] MIST-CF ranks chemical formula and adduct assignments for an unknown mass spectrum using an end-to-end energy based modeling approach, without referencing any spectrum databases: "MIST-CF ranks chemical formula and adduct assignments for an unknown mass spectrum using an end-to-end energy based modeling approach, without referencing any spectrum databases"64- [other] Compile results in a metrics table comparing performance across negative adduct types: "Compile results in a metrics table comparing performance across negative adduct types."65- [intro] MIST-CF considers multiple adduct types beyond [M+H]+ (still only positive mode): "Considering multiple adduct types beyond [M+H]+ (still only positive mode)"66- [intro] Instead of computing fragmentation trees, MIST-CF adopts a formula transformer neural network architecture and learns in a data dependent fashion: "Instead of computing fragmentation trees, MIST-CF adopts a formula transformer neural network architecture and learns in a data dependent fashion"
HolobiomicsLab