Quick and effective approximation of <i>in silico</i> saturation mutagenesis experiments with first-order Taylor expansion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To understand the decision process of genomic sequence-to-function models, various explainable AI algorithms have been proposed. These methods determine the importance of each nucleotide in a given input sequence to the model’s predictions, and enable discovery of cis regulatory motif grammar for gene regulation. The most commonly applied method is in silico saturation mutagenesis (ISM) because its per-nucleotide importance scores can be intuitively understood as the computational counterpart to in vivo saturation mutagenesis experiments. While ISM is highly interpretable, it is computationally challenging to perform, because it requires computing three forward passes for every nucleotide in the given input sequence; these computations add up when analyzing a large number of sequences, and become prohibitive as the length of the input sequences and size of the model grows. Here, we show how to use the first-order Taylor approximation to compute ISM, which reduces its computation cost to a single forward pass for an input sequence. We use our theoretical derivation to connect ISM with the gradient of the model and show how this approximation is related to a recently suggested correction of the model’s gradients for genomic sequence analysis. We show that the Taylor ISM (TISM) approximation is robust across different model ablations, random initializations, training parameters, and data set sizes.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".