Abstract:Abstract Although a wide variety of machine learning (ML) algorithms have been utilized to learn quantitative structure–activity relationships (QSARs), there is no agreed single best algorithm for QSAR learning. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of the performance characteristics of popular ML algorithms used in QSAR learning is highly desirable. In this study, five linear algorithms [linear function Gaussian process regression (linear-GPR), linear function support vector machine (linear-SVM), partial least squares regression (PLSR), multiple linear regression (MLR) and principal component regression (PCR)], three analogizers [radial basis function support vector machine (rbf-SVM), K-nearest neighbor (KNN) and radial basis function Gaussian process regression (rbf-GPR)], six symbolists [extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), Cubist, random forest (RF), multiple adaptive regression splines (MARS), gradient boosting machine (GBM), and classification and regression tree (CART)] and two connectionists [principal component analysis artificial neural network (pca-ANN) and deep neural network (DNN)] were employed to learn the regression-based QSAR models for 14 public data sets comprising nine physicochemical properties and five toxicity endpoints. The results show that rbf-SVM, rbf-GPR, XGBoost and DNN generally illustrate better performances than the other algorithms. The overall performances of different algorithms can be ranked from the best to the worst as follows: rbf-SVM > XGBoost > rbf-GPR > Cubist > GBM > DNN > RF > pca-ANN > MARS > linear-GPR ≈ KNN > linear-SVM ≈ PLSR > CART ≈ PCR ≈ MLR. In terms of prediction accuracy and computational efficiency, SVM and XGBoost are recommended to the regression learning for small data sets, and XGBoost is an excellent choice for large data sets. We then investigated the performances of the ensemble models by integrating the predictions of multiple ML algorithms. The results illustrate that the ensembles of two or three algorithms in different categories can indeed improve the predictions of the best individual ML algorithms.

Least Square Support Vector Machine Based on Cultural Differential Evolution Algorithm and Its Application to QSAR Modeling

Support Vector Machine Applied in QSAR Modelling

Improved Weighted Least Squares Support Vector Machines Algorithm And Its Applications In Spectroscopic Quantitative Analysis

Using support vector regression for QSAR study on the aldose reductase inhibitory activity of some flavones

Adaptive weighted least square support vector machine regression integrated with outlier detection and its application in QSAR

Comparative Study of Qsar/Qspr Correlations Using Support Vector Machines, Radial Basis Function Neural Networks, and Multiple Linear Regression

Cultural Differential Evolution Algorithm and Its Application in Chemical Process Modeling

Dynamic least squares support vector machine

An Adaptive LS-SVM Based Differential Evolution Algorithm

A Novel Interpolation Method Based on Differential Evolution-Simplex Algorithm Optimized Parameters for Support Vector Regression

A New Kernel Function of Support Vector Regression Combined with Probability Distribution and Its Application in Chemometrics and the QSAR Modeling

A Novel Combinatorial Forecast Method Based on Support Vector Machine Regression and K-Near Neighbor Group and Its Application in QSAR

Reduced Least Squares Support Vector Machine Optimized by Differential Evolution

Colonial Competitive Algorithm Assisted Least Squares Support Vector Machines

Evolving least squares support vector machines for stock market trend mining

Development and Evaluation of Conformal Prediction Methods for QSAR

Kernel-based partial least squares: application to fingerprint-based QSAR with model visualization

Classification and Regression with Support Vector Machine as Applied to QSARs of Peptides

A Hybrid Least Square Support Vector Machine Model with Parameters Optimization for Stock Forecasting

Credit risk evaluation using a weighted least squares SVM classifier with design of experiment for parameter selection

Do we need different machine learning algorithms for QSAR modeling? A comprehensive assessment of 16 machine learning algorithms on 14 QSAR data sets