Filip Jozefov

Hongxuan Liu, Roman Bushuiev, Ivy Lightheart et al.

Reliable benchmarking is critical for developing machine learning models for tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) based molecule discovery. Subtle issues in experimental design and model evaluation procedures can degrade the trustworthiness of such benchmarks and lead to erroneous conclusions. We conduct a thorough review of model evaluation issues in the recent MS/MS machine learning literature, using the standard MassSpecGym benchmark suite as a case study to illustrate the impact of these issues. We find evaluation issues in at least 17 of 26 papers reporting MassSpecGym benchmark results in the first year of its adoption. We isolate three classes of failures: (i) data leakage, (ii) shortcut learning, and (iii) implementation bugs and metric divergence. Through extensive experimentation and code replication, we quantify the impact of these issues and show how they corrupt the evaluation standards MassSpecGym was designed to enforce. We distill our findings into recommendations generalizable to MS/MS challenges, benchmarks, and custom evaluation setups. We also release MassSpecGym v1.5, an implementation of our recommendations in the MassSpecGym benchmarking suite which addresses the failure modes identified in this audit. MassSpecGym v1.5 is publicly available at https://github.com/pluskal-lab/MassSpecGym.

Adam Hájek, Michal Starý, Filip Jozefov et al.

Identification of experimentally acquired mass spectra of unknown compounds presents a~particular challenge because reliable spectral databases do not cover the potential chemical space with sufficient density. Therefore machine learning based \emph{de-novo} methods, which derive molecular structure directly from its mass spectrum gained attention recently. We present a~novel method in this family, addressing a~specific usecase of GC-EI-MS spectra, which is particularly hard due to lack of additional information from the first stage of MS/MS experiments, on which the previously published methods rely. We analyze strengths and drawbacks or our approach and discuss future directions.