FlowingFlowing
← Back to all development cases
Development case · blind model judgment pending independent human review; not a formal Benchmark conclusion.
AutocompleteEvidence version preferred17 / 162 · b4dc366b741e9059

Generative AI for Controllable Protein Sequence Design: A Survey

Quantitative biology · 2402.10516v1

FLOWING EVIDENCE BENCHMARK

How do we tell whether Evidence helps?

At the same writing position, with the same model and task, how does supplying retrieved paper passages change the first output? We compare matched versions and retain ties, unusable outputs and incomplete reviews.

SAME DRAFT · EVIDENCE ON OR OFF

01 · FIXED WRITING POSITION

MANUSCRIPT

Same writing position ▌

Matched autocomplete at the same draft position

02 · TWO MATCHED INPUTS

SHARED BY BOTH

Manuscript context, model, task and prompt

A · With Evidence

Retrieved paper passages supplied

B · Without Evidence

No retrieved passages supplied

LLM

Same model and version

A → first output

B → first output

Blind judge agent

First outputs are anonymized as X and Y

Continuation review: accuracy, fit to the writing task and usability
Returns: X preferred / tie / Y preferred / both unusable

Order check: X / Y → Y / X

HOW DOES BLIND JUDGING WORK?

① Anonymize both outputs
The judge sees the same draft and both first outputs without knowing which received Evidence.

② Compare and swap order
The judge applies task-specific criteria in X/Y and then Y/X order.

③ Review disagreements
A third pass resolves disagreements. Incomplete reviews remain in the denominator.

How are autocomplete positions stratified?

Before seeing generation outcomes, we check whether a retrieved passage contains a specific proposition that directly supports the next writing move. Those positions appear in the left opportunity group; the rest are ordinary positions on the right. We select a balanced sample from admitted papers in each field. The 50/50 split is experimental, not a measure of how often either type occurs in writing.

AUTOCOMPLETE · 110

Biology, statistics and astrophysics

55 positions on each side; statistics uses the ten-paper rerun.

AUTOCOMPLETE · 52

Psychology and climate science

26 positions on each side; psychology includes nine papers and climate science four.

How are the table percentages calculated?

Across five fields, 51 of 81 left-column positions preferred the Evidence version. Ties, pairs where both versions were unusable and incomplete reviews remain in the denominator.

51Evidence version preferred
÷
81All positions in this group
=
63%Evidence preference in this group

Source contribution is a separate review: 16 of 22 Evidence wins entered into source review directly used retrieved papers; another 29 wins await review.

These are development-stage model judgments pending independent human review. They are not formal Benchmark conclusions and do not, on their own, establish causality.

Manuscript writing position

Text excerpt · not a PDF page

Research manuscript · excerpt

Generative AI for Controllable Protein Sequence Design: A Survey

1 Introduction

…gorithms, have been propelling the protein design field towards an unprecedented revolution. In this survey, we systematically review recent advances in generative AI for controllable protein sequence design. To set the stage, we first outline the foundational tasks in protein sequence design in terms of the constraints involved and present key generative models and optimization algorithms. We then offer in-depth reviews of each design task and discuss the pertinent applications. Finally, we identify the unresolved challenges and highlight research opportunities that merit deeper exploration.

↓ Next paragraph was generated here

The highlighted text is near the writing position. This is a layout of the evaluation input, not a PDF screenshot.

A matched comparison at the same writing positionJudgment: Evidence version preferred

Both arms use the same model, task and manuscript context. Only the retrieved passages differ. The first recorded output from each arm is shown below.

Evidence

Same model and position · retrieved passages supplied · first output

Preferred by blind review

Despite this progress, deep generative models for protein design remain limited in their ability to capture structural constraints and sequence diversity simultaneously, leaving controllable design an open problem.

Passages supplied to the Evidence version

Benchmarking deep generative models for diverse antibody sequence design

Computational protein design, i.e. inferring novel and diverse protein sequences consistent with a given structure, remains a major unsolved challenge. Recently, deep generative models that learn from sequences alone or from sequences and structures jointly have shown impressive performance on this…

Read full passage excerpt

Computational protein design, i.e. inferring novel and diverse protein sequences consistent with a given structure, remains a major unsolved challenge. Recently, deep generative models that learn from sequences alone or from sequences and structures jointly have shown impressive performance on this task. However, those models appear limited in terms of modeling structural constraints, capturing enough sequence diversity, or both.

No Evidence

Same model and position · no retrieved passages · first output

Not preferred in this comparison

No continuation text was produced.

Model action：complete

Blind model judgment

The blinded model review preferred the Evidence version. Its original rationale appears below.

Read the original model judgment

Output A is empty when the task clearly requires a completion paragraph; this is unusable. Output B provides a coherent, single academic paragraph that directly continues the manuscript's flow. It is grounded in the supplied source, which states that deep generative models 'appear limited in terms of modeling structural constraints, capturing enough sequence diversity, or both.' Output B accurately paraphrases this limitation and connects it to the manuscript's theme of 'controllable protein sequence design' without adding unsupported claims. No citation markers are present that would violate the insertion contract.

Source review confirmed that this continuation directly used specific, verifiable information from the retrieved paper.

The passages are input material; their presence does not mean an output used them or that they support every claim. Draft and source passages are excerpted; no simulated scores or PDF appear here.