Mutual information without the influence of phylogeny or entropy dramatically improves residue contact prediction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Compensating alterations during the evolution of protein families give rise to coevolving positions that contain important structural and functional information. However, a high background composed of random noise and phylogenetic components interferes with the identification of coevolving positions. RESULTS: We have developed a rapid, simple and general method based on information theory that accurately estimates the level of background mutual information for each pair of positions in a given protein family. Removal of this background results in a metric, MIp, that correctly identifies substantially more coevolving positions in protein families than any existing method. A significant fraction of these positions coevolve strongly with one or only a few positions. The vast majority of such position pairs are in contact in representative structures. The identification of strongly coevolving position pairs can be used to impose significant structural limitations and should be an important additional constraint for ab initio protein folding. AVAILABILITY: Alignments and program files can be found in the Supplementary Information.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it