Figure 2.

Comparison of the performance of pose clustering and epitope prediction between AbAdapt and AbAdapt‐AF. The success ratio of pose clustering in LOOCV set (A) and Holdout set (B) after clustering and combining the pose from Piper and Hex. When setting the true cutoff of interface RMSD (RCUT) 15, 10 and 7 Å, the corresponding success ratio (queries with at least one correctly predicted pose among all poses) was shown above each bar. The final epitope prediction performance in LOOCV set (C) and Holdout set (D) after introducing the post‐docking features of specific antibodies.