. 2020 Apr 4;36(12):3739–3748. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa207

Table 2.

Comparison of PIZSA, CIPS, GraphRank, iScore and scoring functions from respective docking methods on software-specific Protein-Protein Docking Benchmark 5 decoys

Method	PIZSA	CIPS	GraphRank^a	iScore^a	Self
SwarmDock (18)	10/1*/3	9/1*/2	7/1*/6	10/2*/6	9/1*/5
pyDock (14)	3/2**	1/1**	5/3**	6/3**	6/1**
ZDock (10)	4/2**	5/2**	4/3**	6/5**	3/2**
HADDOCK (9)	3/2**	3/1**	3/2*/2	3/2*/2	3/2*/3

Note: Summary of the number of targets with near-natives in 10 selected models. The total number of targets from each docking method is indicated in parentheses. Self indicates docking method’s respective scoring function. High- and medium-quality models are indicated by *** and **, respectively.

Performance of methods directly adapted from Geng et al. (2020).