Inferensys

Glossary

Predicted Local Distance Difference Test (pLDDT)

A per-residue confidence metric output by AlphaFold, estimating the local accuracy of the predicted structure on a scale from 0 to 100.
AI evaluator reviewing output quality on laptop, comparison metrics visible, casual evaluation session.
CONFIDENCE METRIC

What is Predicted Local Distance Difference Test (pLDDT)?

A per-residue confidence score output by AlphaFold that estimates the local accuracy of a predicted protein structure on a scale from 0 to 100.

The Predicted Local Distance Difference Test (pLDDT) is a per-residue, confidence metric generated by AlphaFold that estimates the local accuracy of a predicted 3D protein structure. It is expressed on a scale from 0 to 100, where higher scores indicate higher predicted reliability and a strong likelihood that the local structure matches what would be determined experimentally.

The pLDDT score is derived from a self-consistency analysis performed during the model's recycling process. It specifically predicts the local distance difference test (lDDT) score—a well-established metric that compares inter-atom distances in a model to a reference structure—without requiring the true structure. Residues with pLDDT > 90 are considered very high confidence, while those below 50 often correspond to intrinsically disordered regions and should be interpreted with caution.

pLDDT METRICS

Frequently Asked Questions

Clarifying the most common questions about the Predicted Local Distance Difference Test, the primary per-residue confidence metric for AlphaFold and related protein structure prediction models.

The Predicted Local Distance Difference Test (pLDDT) is a per-residue confidence metric output by AlphaFold that estimates the local accuracy of a predicted protein structure on a scale from 0 to 100. It is the model's internal prediction of the local Distance Difference Test (lDDT-Cα), a superposition-free score that evaluates the correctness of local atomic distances without requiring a global alignment to the native structure.

AlphaFold calculates pLDDT by predicting, for each residue, the probability that the distances to its neighboring atoms will fall within a threshold of the true structure. The model outputs a distribution over distance bins, and the pLDDT score is derived from the expected fraction of preserved local distances. A score of 90-100 indicates very high confidence, typically corresponding to well-ordered core residues. Scores between 70-90 represent generally good backbone predictions, while scores between 50-70 indicate low confidence and often correspond to flexible loops. Scores below 50 are considered very low confidence and may represent intrinsically disordered regions or complete prediction failures. Crucially, pLDDT is a predicted metric—it is the model's own uncertainty estimate, not a comparison to an experimental ground truth.

CONFIDENCE METRIC

Key Characteristics of pLDDT

The Predicted Local Distance Difference Test (pLDDT) is a per-residue confidence metric output by AlphaFold. It provides a quantitative estimate of the local accuracy of a predicted protein structure on a scale from 0 to 100, serving as the primary quality filter for downstream analysis.

01

Definition and Scale

pLDDT is a per-residue confidence score ranging from 0 to 100. It estimates the local distance difference test (lDDT) score that would be achieved against an experimental reference structure, without requiring that reference. A higher score indicates higher predicted accuracy for that specific residue's local environment.

  • Scale: 0 (low confidence) to 100 (high confidence)
  • Granularity: Computed independently for each residue
  • Interpretation: A proxy for the expected lDDT-Cα value
02

Confidence Tiers and Interpretation

AlphaFold categorizes residues into discrete confidence bands for intuitive interpretation and visualization:

  • Very high (pLDDT > 90): High accuracy; suitable for detailed structural analysis and characterizing binding sites.
  • Confident (90 > pLDDT > 70): Generally good backbone prediction; useful for domain-level analysis.
  • Low (70 > pLDDT > 50): Low confidence; treat with caution, often corresponds to flexible loops.
  • Very low (pLDDT < 50): Strong indicator of intrinsic disorder; the residue likely does not adopt a single stable conformation in isolation.
03

Distinction from pLDDT

pLDDT is often confused with the Predicted Aligned Error (PAE), but they measure fundamentally different aspects of confidence:

  • pLDDT: Measures local confidence. It answers: "How accurate is the local packing around this residue?"
  • PAE: Measures global confidence. It answers: "If I align the prediction on residue i, how far off is the predicted position of residue j?"
  • Key Insight: A domain can have high pLDDT (well-folded internally) but high PAE relative to another domain (uncertain relative orientation).
04

Training and Derivation

The pLDDT predictor is a regression head within the AlphaFold architecture, trained in a supervised manner:

  • Training Signal: The actual lDDT-Cα score, calculated by comparing a predicted structure to its known experimental structure in the Protein Data Bank (PDB).
  • Self-Consistency: During training, the model learns to estimate the lDDT it would achieve, making it a self-assessment mechanism.
  • Output: The final pLDDT value is a scalar per residue, extracted from the model's output before the final structure is generated.
05

Practical Applications in Research

pLDDT is the primary gatekeeper for downstream computational and experimental analyses:

  • Disorder Prediction: Residues with pLDDT < 50 are a state-of-the-art predictor of intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs).
  • Domain Parsing: High-confidence regions separated by low-confidence linkers delineate structured domains.
  • Variant Interpretation: The impact of a missense mutation is more reliably modeled in high-pLDDT regions.
  • Molecular Docking: Only high-confidence (pLDDT > 90) side-chain positions should be used for rigid-body docking studies.
06

Limitations and Caveats

Despite its utility, pLDDT has critical limitations that must be understood to avoid over-interpretation:

  • Not a Global Score: A high average pLDDT does not guarantee correct domain orientation; always cross-reference with PAE.
  • Confidence ≠ Function: A high pLDDT score confirms structural accuracy but does not validate a functional hypothesis.
  • Artifactual Folding: In rare cases, a sequence may be predicted with high confidence in a non-native conformation, especially in the absence of deep MSAs.
  • Ligand Blindness: pLDDT does not reflect confidence in the position of co-factors, ligands, or ions.
CONFIDENCE METRICS

pLDDT vs. PAE: Understanding the Difference

A comparison of the two primary per-residue and pairwise confidence metrics output by AlphaFold2 for assessing the quality and reliability of a predicted protein structure.

FeaturepLDDTPAE

Full Name

Predicted Local Distance Difference Test

Predicted Aligned Error

What It Measures

Local confidence in the position of a single residue relative to its true structure

Expected positional error between any two residues (pairwise), including those far apart

Scale

0 to 100 (per-residue score)

0 to ~30+ Ångströms (per residue pair)

Interpretation

Higher is better (>90 = high confidence; <50 = low confidence/disorder)

Lower is better (<5 Å = well-defined relative position; >15 Å = high uncertainty)

Primary Use Case

Assessing local backbone accuracy and identifying intrinsically disordered regions

Assessing global domain packing, inter-domain orientation, and quaternary structure confidence

Visualization

Color-coded on the 3D structure model (blue=confident, red=low confidence)

2D heatmap plot showing error for every residue pair (i,j)

Domain Assessment

Cannot assess relative domain orientation; a domain may have high pLDDT but be incorrectly placed

Directly reveals uncertainty in relative domain positions; high inter-domain PAE indicates flexible or uncertain orientation

Output Dimensionality

1D vector (L residues)

2D matrix (L x L residues)

Prasad Kumkar

About the author

Prasad Kumkar

CEO & MD, Inference Systems

Prasad Kumkar is the CEO & MD of Inference Systems and writes about AI systems architecture, LLM infrastructure, model serving, evaluation, and production deployment. Over 5+ years, he has worked across computer vision models, L5 autonomous vehicle systems, and LLM research, with a focus on taking complex AI ideas into real-world engineering systems.

His work and writing cover AI systems, large language models, AI agents, multimodal systems, autonomous systems, inference optimization, RAG, evaluation, and production AI engineering.