AbFlowNet: Optimizing Antibody-Antigen Binding Energy via Diffusion-GFlowNet Fusion
Abrar Rahman Abir, Haz Sameen Shahgir, Md Rownok Zahan Ratul, Md Toki Tahmid, Greg Ver Steeg, Yue Dong

TL;DR
AbFlowNet introduces a novel generative framework combining GFlowNet and Diffusion models to optimize antibody binding energy efficiently, outperforming existing methods in amino acid recovery, geometric reconstruction, and energy metrics.
Contribution
The paper presents AbFlowNet, a new approach that unifies diffusion and reward optimization for antibody design, directly incorporating binding energy signals into the generative process.
Findings
Outperforms base diffusion model in amino acid recovery by 3.06%
Achieves 20.40% improvement in geometric reconstruction (RMSD)
Reduces binding energy errors by 38.1%
Abstract
Complementarity Determining Regions (CDRs) are critical segments of an antibody that facilitate binding to specific antigens. Current computational methods for CDR design utilize reconstruction losses and do not jointly optimize binding energy, a crucial metric for antibody efficacy. Rather, binding energy optimization is done through computationally expensive Online Reinforcement Learning (RL) pipelines rely heavily on unreliable binding energy estimators. In this paper, we propose AbFlowNet, a novel generative framework that integrates GFlowNet with Diffusion models. By framing each diffusion step as a state in the GFlowNet framework, AbFlowNet jointly optimizes standard diffusion losses and binding energy by directly incorporating energy signals into the training process, thereby unifying diffusion and reward optimization in a single procedure. Experimental results show that…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2026
- Authors introduce a method allowing to jointly optimise for standard generative / diffusion objectives and binding energy estimated through force field methods. - Benchmarking on standard datasets / splits reveals slight improvements across investigated standard metrics (amino acid recovery, RMSD to wild-type conformation).
- I find the benchmarking to be not convincing, which is reflected in my score. Qualitative example shown in Fig 3 is not clear at all, even for a person with trained structural eye and energy differences are miniscule.
- nice idea to integrate GFlowNet framework with a diffusion model to enforce binding energy constraints in training of generative antibody designs - clever use of the trajectory balance objective
- parts are repetitive (intro/related work) wheras other (critical) parts where too condensed (trajectory balance) - solution relies on trajectory balance objective, which has been proposed in earlier work - somewhat limited set of metrics used in main text (RMSD,AAR...); comparison on these other metrics is also not trivial/conclusive - could have expanded the results more top gain more insight in performance, eg not restricting to top-1 metrics but also include distributions of generated desig
- This model unifies data and physical prior through the combination of diffusion and GFlowNet. - It is more efficient than previous preference optimization-based methods which require collection of massive training pairs. - It demonstrates performance improvement compared to previous antibody design models (GNN-based and diffusion-based).
- Evaluation metrics are outdated. Only Rosetta scores are computed which is however noisy and sensitive to minor perturbation. A more reliable evaluation method that has been used more recently is using AlphaFold to predict the complex structure and compare the RMSD between generation and AlphaFold prediction.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMonoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research · vaccines and immunoinformatics approaches · T-cell and B-cell Immunology
MethodsDiffusion · Balanced Selection
