AbGaze: Attentive Geometric Representation Learning for End-to-End Antibody Design
Authors: Jiashuo Wang, Siqi Fan, Yizhen Luo, Zaiqing Nie
Organizations: Institute for AI Industry Research (AIR), Tsinghua University · Department of Computer Science and Technology, Tsinghua University · PharMolix Inc.
Computational antibody design requires representations that capture the geometric patterns underlying antigen--antibody interactions, yet existing approaches often rely on scalar distances or surface-intrinsic features, leaving cross-molecular geometry largely implicit. We present AbGaze, an end-to-end antibody design framework based on attentive geometric representation learning, which encodes distance, spatial direction, and surface-normal orientation of antigen surfaces relative to antibody-residue local frames, and adaptively aggregates these geometric interactions according to their interfacial context. The learned interaction representation is shared across multi-CDR co-design, complex structure prediction, and affinity optimization, with local-frame geometric supervision further constraining the representation. AbGaze outperforms prior methods across all three tasks: relative to the second-best method, it improves amino-acid recovery by 7.1% and reduces structural error by 14.9% on average over the six CDRs, improves interface docking quality (DockQ) by 6.6%, and raises the affinity improvement rate (IMP) by 32.5%.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of AbGaze. We propose AbGaze, a unified framework for antigen–antibody interaction modeling based on orientation-aware geometry and adaptive attention. The framework iteratively updates the antibody conformation by explicitly encoding the relative spatial relationships between the paratope local frames and the antigen surface, while an adaptive attention mechanism learns contextual interactions and guides structural refinement.
Figure 2: Overview of local interface representation and adaptive attention. (a) Global interaction view between the antibody (CDR) residue and the antigen surface mesh. (b) Orientation-aware geometric encoding expressed in the antibody-residue local frame, capturing distance ( r ), spatial direction ( Θ,Φ ), and surface normal ( Θn,n ). (c) Adaptive atom–surface attention weighting used to dynamically locate the interaction center on the antigen surface.
Metric
Item
AbGaze
AbFlow
dyMEAN
AAR ↑
L1
0.77
0.69
0.76
L2
0.85
0.82
0.83
L3
0.69
0.58
0.52
H1
0.79
0.74
0.76
H2
0.71
0.65
0.69
H3
0.43
0.38
0.38
Table 1: Performance comparison on all-CDR antibody design. ↑ indicates higher is better, while ↓ indicates lower is better. Bold denotes the best performance.
Method
AAR ↑
TMscore ↑
lDDT ↑
CAAR ↑
RMSD ↓
DockQ ↑
RosettaAb
32.31%
0.9717
0.8272
14.58%
17.70
0.137
DiffAb
35.31%
0.9695
0.8281
22.17%
23.24
0.158
MEAN
37.38%
0.9688
0.8252
24.11%
17.30
0.162
HERN
32.65%
–
–
19.27%
9.15
0.294
dyMEAN
43.65%
0.9726
0.8454
28.11%
8.11
0.409
AbFlow
42.10%
0.9735
0.8518
28.80%
8.45
0.428
Table 2: Performance comparison on CDR-H3 antibody design on the RAbD benchmark.
Model
TMscore ↑
lDDT ↑
RMSD ↓
DockQ ↑
HDock
0.9723
0.8503
18.46
0.170
HERN
0.9722
0.8441
10.19
0.424
dyMEAN
0.9730
0.8568
9.04
0.409
AbFlow
0.9720
0.8526
8.66
0.419
AbGaze
0.9735
0.8572
8.03
0.435
Table 3: Performance comparison on antigen–antibody complex structure prediction.
Method
Best ΔΔG↓
IMP (%) ↑
ΔL↓
DiffAb
-3.29
38.8
5.62
dyMEAN
-4.47
53.3
4.25
AbFlow
-9.31
52.8
6.98
AbGaze
-11.10
70.6
8.07
Table 4: Comparison of affinity optimization performance.
Variant
AAR ↑
RMSD ↓
DockQ ↑
lDDT ↑
TMscore ↑
AbGaze (Full)
66.2%
1.052
0.422
0.831
0.973
(A) w/o Orient.-Aware Attn.
−4.1%
+0.061
−0.040
−0.007
−0.003
(B) w/o Local-Frame Supv.
−1.2%
+0.147
+0.012
−0.043
−0.009
Table 5: Ablation study on all-CDR antibody design.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Res.
Slots 5–14
Res.
Slots 5–14
Gly
—
Ser
CB, OG
Ala
CB
Thr
CB, OG1, CG2
Val
CB, CG1, CG2
Cys
CB, SG
Leu
CB, CG, CD1, CD2
Pro
CB, CG, CD
Ile
CB, CG1, CG2, CD1
Phe
CB, CG, CD1, CD2, CE1, CE2, CZ
Asp
CB, CG, OD1, OD2
Tyr
CB, CG, CD1, CD2, CE1, CE2, CZ, OH
Appendix
Table 6: Side-chain heavy atoms occupying slots 5–14, in slot order; slots 1–4 hold the backbone atoms.
State
Initialization
Evolution
Training loss
antigen atoms
observed context
fixed
—
mesh {vj} , normals
precomputed (MSMS)
fixed
—
sequence (framework)
observed
fixed
—
sequence (CDRs)
[MASK]
committed per round
Lseq
coordinates (all)
framework template
refined per round
structure terms
transient states x~i,p
from observed antigen
Eq. 6 only
none
Appendix
Table 7: Provenance of the coordinate and sequence states consumed by the interaction encoder.
Term
Definition (one line)
Weight
Source
Lseq
per-round CE, masked residues
1
standard
Lx
Kabsch-aligned coordinates
1
Kong et al. (2023)
Lbond
backbone/side-chain bond lengths
1
Kong et al. (2023)
LSP
shadow-paratope coordinates
1
Kong et al. (2023)
Led
predicted inter-edge distances
1
Kong et al. (2023)
LFAPE
frame-aligned point error, dmax clamp
0.5
Jumper et al. (2021)
Appendix
Table 8: Loss terms of Eq. 9 ; structure, docking, and auxiliary terms are smooth- ℓ1 penalties.
CDR
AbGaze
IgGM
AbGaze wins
H1
0.752
0.740
✓
H2
0.694
0.644
✓
H3
0.397
0.360
✓
L1
0.728
0.750
×
L2
0.753
0.743
✓
L3
0.677
0.635
✓
Appendix
Table 9: CDR-level AAR comparison with IgGM on its own SAbDab split (post-2023); IgGM numbers are from its published Table 2.
CDR
Distinct ( ↑ )
Diversity ( ↑ )
% all-same
H1
2.60
0.092
21.7%
H2
2.93
0.127
16.7%
H3
4.92
0.458
1.7%
L1
2.00
0.070
50.0%
L2
1.42
0.062
70.0%
L3
3.93
0.181
3.3%
Appendix
Table 10: Design diversity on all-CDR design (five samples per target, τ=0.5 ).
Method
AAR ↑
CAAR ↑
RMSD ↓
DockQ ↑
lDDT ↑
TM-Score ↑
dyMEAN
60.1%
50.3%
1.357
0.396
0.803
0.965
AbFlow
59.7%
49.8%
1.104
0.379
0.815
0.971
AbGaze (Reg.)
64.0%
54.9%
1.021
0.407
0.834
0.974
AbGaze (Full)
66.2%
57.1%
1.052
0.422
0.831
0.973
Appendix
Table 11: All-CDR design on RAbD without diverse sampling; notation as in Table 1 .
Antibody design methods condition on antigen structure to generate complementarity-determining regions (CDR), yet a systematic evaluation of baseline methods reveals that they largely ignore the antigen input. We identify three failure modes that explain this behavior. Antigen blindness arises because models derive predictions from antibody framework context rather than antigen information, producing nearly identical CDRs regardless of the target. Vocabulary collapse reduces predicted amino acids to three to five per position, far below the ground truth distribution in native sequences. Moreover, any model trained with standard per-position cross-entropy converges to the positional marginal distribution, making it provably unable to produce antigen-specific sequence predictions. We propose a novel encoder-decoder architecture called AgForce, that uses a graph neural network (GNN) as the encoder and specialized decoders for sequence-structure co-design. Specifically, we apply framework dropout, gated bottlenecks, and hyperbolic cross attention that prevent the antibody shortcut path. In the decoder, a Mixture Density Network (MDN) sequence head with Potts-like pairwise coupling and annealed Multiple Choice Learning (aMCL) replaces the cross-entropy objective with a multi-component distribution whose optimal solution differs from the positional marginal. An antigen cycle consistency head routes gradients through the sequence decoder, forcing predicted distributions to encode antigen identity. AgForce achieves the best binding quality and sequence recovery simultaneously on the CHIMERA-Bench dataset, improving amino acid recovery by 8% over the strongest sequence baseline while surpassing the baselines across all interface metrics, and nearly doubling the effective vocabulary of GNN methods. The source code is available at: https://github.com/mansoor181/ag-force.git
Mansoor Ahmed, Murray Patterson
1Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA · 2Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA
Computational antibody CDR design methods condition on antigen structure to generate binding loops. Yet, the existing architectures conflate two fundamentally distinct sub-problems: identifying which CDR positions will contact the antigen, and selecting amino acids at those positions. This forces models to learn contact reasoning implicitly through uniform message passing, diluting antigen signal across all positions equally. We introduce ConTact, a contact-then-act architecture that explicitly decomposes CDR design into three cascaded stages: learning surface complementarity fingerprints, predicting CDR-antigen contacts, and injecting contact-gated antigen features into the prediction head. A distance-biased cross-attention module encodes geometric priors favoring spatial neighbors, while a contact-weighted cross-entropy loss concentrates gradient signal on binding-critical positions. On the CHIMERA-Bench dataset, ConTact achieves the lowest backbone RMSD on every split (a 5 to 6% improvement over the best baseline) and the best fraction of native contacts, interface RMSD, and epitope F1 on the antigen-fold and temporal splits, while remaining competitive on the harder epitope-group split. The source code is available at: https://github.com/mansoor181/ConTact.git
Mansoor Ahmed, Spencer VonBank, Nadeem Taj +3
Georgia State University, Atlanta, USA · Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA · DePauw University, Indiana, USA +2
Antibodies are essential proteins that play a central role in immune recognition by binding specific antigen molecules. Although recent protein language models have enabled progress in single-chain protein modeling and generation, they often fall short in antigen-specific antibody design, where effective modeling requires explicit pairing between antibody and antigen, particularly at the epitope level. To address these limitations, we introduce AAMFM, an Antigen-specific Antibody Multimodal Foundation Model that learns unified representations of antibody sequences and structures conditioned on antigen context. AAMFM incorporates rich antigen information including geometric interfaces and epitope annotations via a cross-modal adapter, enabling joint modeling of antibody-antigen interactions in a shared latent space. To further guide the model toward functional relevance, we fine-tune AAMFM using Calibrated Direct Preference Optimization (Cal-DPO), leveraging preference signals extracted from a strong structural prior to align learning with binding-specific objectives. Extensive experiments demonstrate that AAMFM achieves state-of-the-art performance in functional antibody design, revealing its potential for antigen-specific antibody engineering. Our code is available at https://github.com/XL-S224/AAMFM.