Self-Supervised Contrastive Learning of Protein Representations By Mutual Information Maximization
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
Abstract Pretrained embedding representations of biological sequences which capture meaningful properties can alleviate many problems associated with supervised learning in biology. We apply the principle of mutual information maximization between local and global information as a self-supervised pretraining signal for protein embeddings. To do so, we divide protein sequences into fixed size fragments, and train an autoregressive model to distinguish between subsequent fragments from the same protein and fragments from random proteins. Our model, CPCProt, achieves comparable performance to state-of-the-art self-supervised models for protein sequence embeddings on various downstream tasks, but reduces the number of parameters down to 2% to 10% of benchmarked models. Further, we explore how downstream assessment protocols affect embedding evaluation, and the effect of contrastive learning hyperparameters on empirical performance. We hope that these results will inform the development of contrastive learning methods in protein biology and other modalities.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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