MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396593457 · doi:10.1093/bib/bbae178

Scoring alignments by embedding vector similarity

2024· article· en· W4396593457 on OpenAlexafffund
Sepehr Ashrafzadeh, G. Brian Golding, Silvana Ilie, Lucian Ilie

Bibliographic record

VenueBriefings in Bioinformatics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityMcMaster UniversityWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCompute Canada
KeywordsSimilarity (geometry)EmbeddingComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Vector (molecular biology)Computational biologyInformation retrievalNatural language processingBiologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sequence similarity is of paramount importance in biology, as similar sequences tend to have similar function and share common ancestry. Scoring matrices, such as PAM or BLOSUM, play a crucial role in all bioinformatics algorithms for identifying similarities, but have the drawback that they are fixed, independent of context. We propose a new scoring method for amino acid similarity that remedies this weakness, being contextually dependent. It relies on recent advances in deep learning architectures that employ self-supervised learning in order to leverage the power of enormous amounts of unlabelled data to generate contextual embeddings, which are vector representations for words. These ideas have been applied to protein sequences, producing embedding vectors for protein residues. We propose the E-score between two residues as the cosine similarity between their embedding vector representations. Thorough testing on a wide variety of reference multiple sequence alignments indicate that the alignments produced using the new $E$-score method, especially ProtT5-score, are significantly better than those obtained using BLOSUM matrices. The new method proposes to change the way alignments are computed, with far-reaching implications in all areas of textual data that use sequence similarity. The program to compute alignments based on various $E$-scores is available as a web server at e-score.csd.uwo.ca. The source code is freely available for download from github.com/lucian-ilie/E-score.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBriefings in BioinformaticsSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207