Can a Sparse 2 <sup>9</sup> × 2 <sup>9</sup> Pixel Chaos Game Representation Predict Protein Binding Sites using Fine-Tuned State-of-the-Art Deep Learning Semantic Segmentation Models?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract No. While our experiments ultimately failed, this work was motivated by the seemingly reasonable hypothesis that encoding protein sequences as a fractal-based image in combination with a binary mask identifying those pixels representative of the protein binding interface could effectively be used to fine-tune a semantic segmentation model. We were wrong. Despite the shortcomings of this work, a number of insights were drawn, inspiring discussion about how this fractal-based space may be exploited to generate effective protein binding site predictors in the future. Furthermore, these realizations promise to orient complimentary studies leveraging fractal-based representations, whether in the field of bioinformatics, or more broadly within disparate fields leveraging sequence-type data, such as Natural Language Processing. In a non-traditional way, this work presents the experimental design undertaken and interleaves various insights and limitations. It is the hope of this work that those interested in leveraging fractal-based representations and deep learning architectures as part of their work will benefit from the insights arising from this work.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".