Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 38 references

Protein-SE(3): Benchmarking SE(3)-based Generative Models for Protein Structure Design

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A new benchmark retrains six SE(3) protein generators under one setup for a fair test.

desk verdict Useful packaged benchmark with a real fairness caveat—RfDiffusion is a guest row, and retraining configs are undisclosed. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20243 v1 pith:KMIOKR4X submitted 2025-07-27 cs.LG cs.AI

Lang Yu , Zhangyang Gao , Cheng Tan , Qin Chen , Jie Zhou , Liang He This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords proteinstructuredesignSE(3)generativemodelsbenchmarkdiffusionflowmatchingscoremotifscaffoldingbackbonegeneration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Protein-$\mathrm{SE}(3)$ retrains six existing generative protein backbone models from the DDPM, score-matching, and flow-matching families inside one modular training pipeline with the same datasets and evaluation metrics, so that design performance can be compared on equal footing. The central claim is that, once training is aligned this way, flow-matching methods converge most cleanly on synthetic translation and rotation alignment tasks and generally deliver strong designability, diversity, novelty, and inference speed, while the score-matching model RfDiffusion, evaluated with its official checkpoint, still reaches the highest self-consistency quality, especially at longer chain lengths. The benchmark also abstracts the shared mathematics of $\mathrm{SE}(3)$ diffusion into a synthetic toolkit that trains on coordinates and rotation matrices alone, enabling rapid prototyping before protein-level training. The contribution is therefore a standardized arena: one training setup, one set of metrics, and a public codebase for comparing and building $\mathrm{SE}(3)$-based protein structure generators.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the residue-frame decomposition of the protein backbone, in which each residue is a rigid transformation in $\mathrm{SE}(3)=\mathbb{R}^3\rtimes\mathrm{SO}(3)$; generation is split into a translation process on $\mathbb{R}^3$ with Gaussian noise and a rotation process on $\mathrm{SO}(3)$ with isotropic Gaussian noise $\mathrm{IGSO}(3)$. The unifying mechanism is a shared training and evaluation pipeline that retrains all baselines on the same filtered monomeric dataset, and a mathematical abstraction toolkit that measures distribution alignment in both spaces with the first-order Wasserstein distance $W_1$. This decomposition is what allows DDPM, score-matching, and flow-matching models to share one codebase, and it is what lets the benchmark attribute performance differences to algorithmic choice rather than to dataset or training-scheme variation.

What would settle it

Retrain RfDiffusion from scratch in the same framework with disclosed hyperparameters and rerun the unconditional scaffolding tables; if its quality drops toward the other score-matching models, the flow-matching advantage is confirmed, whereas if it keeps its edge, the paper understates RfDiffusion's algorithmic strength. Releasing the exact training configurations and reproducing Table 1 would settle the same question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that fair cross-comparison of $\mathrm{SE}(3)$ protein generators is achievable when every method is retrained under one shared framework, meaning the same data filtering, same training backend, and same metrics, and that under this setup flow-matching models display the best convergence in the synthetic $\mathbb{R}^3$ and $\mathrm{SO}(3)$ alignment experiments and dominate diversity and efficiency, while the official-checkpoint RfDiffusion retains the best unconditional scaffolding quality in terms of self-consistency TM-score and RMSD. On the motif scaffolding benchmark, the flow-matching model FrameFlow produces the most designable scaffolds, with the highest average self-consistency TM-score in 13 of 24 tasks and the lowest motif RMSD in 19 of 24 tasks. The paper further claims that all methods degrade as chain length grows, and that flow-matching's use of ordinary differential equations explains its speed advantage.

Load-bearing premise

The whole comparison rests on the premise that retraining every method under one framework isolates algorithmic quality; that premise is strained because Section 5 admits RfDiffusion is evaluated only with its official checkpoint and Section 7.4 does not report hyperparameters, learning rates, or noise schedules for the retrained models, so part of the observed gap could be training configuration rather than algorithm.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the unified comparison is correct, flow-matching models are the stronger default for unconditional protein scaffolding when both designability and inference speed matter.
  • On motif scaffolding, FrameFlow yields the most designable scaffolds on 13 of 24 Design24 tasks and the lowest motif RMSD on 19 of 24, so flow matching is also competitive under structural constraints.
  • All compared methods lose quality as chain length grows from 100 to 500 residues, so longer protein design remains an unsolved gap independent of generative paradigm.
  • Flow-matching models sample with ODE integration and need far fewer steps than the DDPM and score-matching baselines, making them the most efficient in the benchmark.
  • The secondary-structure analysis shows that several retrained models generate overly helical backbones, and only a subset of methods match the natural distribution of real proteins.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because RfDiffusion is the only model that was not retrained, its leading quality scores sit outside the benchmark's own fairness premise; retraining it once training code is available is the natural first experiment to test whether flow-matching's advantage is algorithmic.
  • The synthetic-space abstraction implies that Wasserstein convergence on $\mathbb{R}^3$ and $\mathrm{SO}(3)$ could be used as a cheap screening signal for new $\mathrm{SE}(3)$ generative methods, but the paper does not show that this signal transfers to full protein design.
  • If flow-matching's efficiency advantage persists at larger scale, ODE-based models may become the default backbone for protein design, pushing the DDPM family toward architectural changes to escape its cubic-cost attention.
  • The benchmark's modular design makes it straightforward to add newly released $\mathrm{SE}(3)$ generators to the same training track, so the ranking is a living comparison rather than a fixed verdict.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Protein-SE(3), a benchmark for SE(3)-based generative protein backbone models. It integrates six published methods (Genie1, Genie2, FrameDiff, RfDiffusion, FoldFlow variants, FrameFlow) into a PyTorch Lightning framework, retrains most of them on a common PDB-derived dataset, and evaluates them on unconditional scaffolding, motif scaffolding, secondary-structure distribution, and efficiency. The paper also provides a mathematical abstraction of the underlying DDPM, score-matching, and flow-matching formulations, together with small-scale MLP experiments on R3 and SO(3) alignment. The central claims are that the framework enables fair cross-method comparison under the same training data and evaluation metrics, and that the mathematical toolkit supports rapid prototyping and provides insight into model performance.

Significance. If the fairness claim can be substantiated, this benchmark would be a useful community resource: it standardizes dataset construction, training, and evaluation for a fast-moving area, and its release of code and data is a genuine service. The inclusion of multiple metric families (designability, diversity, novelty, secondary structure, efficiency) is a strength, as is the attempt to abstract the mathematical cores of the three generative paradigms. The toy R3/SO(3) experiments are a useful didactic device, though their predictive value for full protein models is not established. However, the paper's headline claim that all methods are fairly investigated with the same training dataset is currently undermined by the treatment of RfDiffusion and by the lack of disclosed training hyperparameters, so the benchmark's central contribution is not yet demonstrated.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 5, Table 1, Section 7.1] The paper's central fairness claim ('All integrated methods are fairly investigated with the same training dataset and evaluation metrics') is violated for RfDiffusion. Section 5 states that RfDiffusion's training code is unavailable and that its official checkpoint is reported only as a 'supplementary reference,' yet Table 1 lists RfDiffusion as a full row in the main comparison, and Section 7.1 draws comparative conclusions that include it (for example, the claim that flow-matching methods demonstrate relatively better quality, while Table 1 shows RfDiffusion with the highest scTM and lowest scRMSD at every length). Because the official checkpoint was trained outside the benchmark's Section 4 dataset and configuration, including it in the same ranking conflates algorithmic merit with training-set and training-configuration differences. The authors should either remove RfDiffusion from the main comparative tables and rankings, clearly separate it as reference-only in all analyses, or retrain it under the unified framework and report those training details.
  2. [Sections 7.1 and 7.4, Table 2] The 'unified training framework' is not shown to provide aligned training setups across the retrained methods. Table 2 reports training epochs ranging from 100 (Genie1, Genie2, FoldFlow) to 150 (FrameDiff) to 800 (FrameFlow), and the paper does not disclose learning rates, noise schedules, optimizer settings, batch sizes, or training budgets for any retrained model. Without these details, observed differences among the retrained methods are confounded by training configuration, so the claim of fair comparison among them remains an assumption. The authors should disclose all hyperparameters and schedules, or provide a sensitivity analysis showing that the reported rankings are robust to reasonable training-configuration variations.
  3. [Section 7.1, Table 1] The qualitative summary in Section 7.1 is contradicted by the paper's own table. The text states that 'in terms of the Quality metric (scTM and scRMSD), flow-matching based methods (FrameFlow and Foldflow) demonstrates relatively better performance,' but Table 1 shows RfDiffusion outperforming all flow-matching methods on both scTM and scRMSD at every length (e.g., at length 100, RfDiffusion scTM 0.97 ± 0.01 versus FrameFlow 0.90 ± 0.10; at length 500, RfDiffusion scTM 0.90 ± 0.11 versus FrameFlow 0.56 ± 0.20). If the authors intend to exclude RfDiffusion from this qualitative claim because it was not retrained, that exclusion must be explicit, and the table should be annotated or restructured so that its content matches the narrative.
  4. [Section 3 and Section 7.1] The paper uses the synthetic MLP experiments to conclude that 'the curves of Flow Matching on R3 and SO(3) alignment exhibit better convergence, indicating the superior design performance evaluated in Section 7.' This inference is not justified as stated. The toy experiments model simple MLPs on synthetic distributions, not the equivariant IPA-style architectures and full protein datasets used in Section 7, and no experiment in the paper establishes that convergence in the toy setting transfers to protein backbone quality. Moreover, the benchmark results in Table 1 do not consistently show flow-matching superiority even among the retrained methods (for example, FoldFlow-OT and FoldFlow-SFM have starred scTM values below 0.5 at length 500). The claim should be removed or explicitly reframed as a hypothesis, or supported by a controlled experiment linking the abstract metrics to full-model performance.
  5. [Table 1 footnote] The footnote to Table 1 states that '*' indicates quality below the scTM > 0.5 threshold, 'so Novelty and Diversity are excluded from the comparison.' However, the table still reports Novelty and Diversity values for starred rows (e.g., Genie1 at length 500, FoldFlow-OT at length 500, FoldFlow-SFM at length 500). Either the starred entries should have blank cells for Novelty and Diversity, or the footnote should be corrected to say that these values are reported but not used in the comparative ranking. As written, the table and its footnote are internally inconsistent.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5] The abstract's statement 'All integrated methods are fairly investigated with the same training dataset and evaluation metrics' should be qualified to reflect that RfDiffusion is evaluated with its official checkpoint, as acknowledged in Section 5.
  2. [Section 2] There are several typographical errors: 'angel' should be 'angle,' 'Follwing' should be 'Following,' and 'Backend by Pytorch Lightning' should be 'Backed by PyTorch Lightning.'
  3. [References] References [12] and [13] are the same paper (Hu, Lundgren, and Niemi, Physical Review E, 2011) and should be merged.
  4. [Section 7.3] The text says 'Given 5 unconditionally generated protein structures with every length ranging from 60 to 320 (1,040 structures in total).' If lengths are sampled as integers from 60 to 320, five samples per length would give 1,305 structures, not 1,040; the sampling procedure should be clarified so the total is reproducible.
  5. [Section 7.2] The counts in the motif-scaffolding summary (FrameFlow 13/24, Genie2 7/24, RfDiffusion 6/24) sum to 26/24; the authors should clarify how ties are handled or report the counts without overlap.
  6. [Figure 5] The axis labels in Figure 5 appear garbled with escaped unicode strings in the manuscript; the figure should be regenerated with readable labels before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the benchmark results, synthetic analyses, and appendix equations are independent of one another, and no prediction reduces to its input by construction.

full rationale

The paper's predictive claims are not derived from its own inputs. The mathematical abstraction in Section 3 and Appendices A-B re-states standard equations from Genie, FrameDiff, FoldFlow, and FrameFlow; these equations are used for visualization on synthetic data with MLPs and Wasserstein distance, and they are not fitted to or used to construct the Section 7 protein benchmark numbers. The benchmark results in Table 1, Figure 5, and Figure 6 come from retraining or from the RfDiffusion official checkpoint, and the synthetic convergence curves are independent measurements rather than definitions of those results. The claim that flow matching aligns faster in the synthetic setting and the finding that flow-matching methods perform well on the protein benchmark are reported as parallel observations; neither reduces to the other by construction. The only notable weakness is that RfDiffusion is evaluated with an official checkpoint trained outside the benchmark dataset, which weakens the 'same training dataset' fairness statement, but this is an experimental-validity caveat, not a circular derivation. No load-bearing step was found in which a prediction equals its input by definition or by self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The benchmark itself introduces no free parameters or invented entities. It relies on standard mathematical tools (Lie groups, IGSO(3), SDEs/ODEs), on domain assumptions about the filtering and evaluation protocols, and on one ad hoc assumption that toy synthetic experiments transfer to real protein models.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math The IGSO(3) distribution and the Riemannian structure of SE(3) correctly model the forward and reverse processes of protein frame diffusion.
    Used in Section 2 and Appendices A-B to define the generative processes.
  • domain assumption The FrameDiff PDB filtering protocol (monomeric, length 60-512, resolution <5A, <50% loops) yields a training set of 19,703 representative proteins suitable for all six methods.
    Section 4 states this filtering protocol is used to build the unified dataset.
  • domain assumption The self-consistency pipeline using ProteinMPNN and ESMFold (scTM, scRMSD) is a valid in-silico proxy for protein designability.
    Section 6 describes this standard but heuristic evaluation pipeline.
  • ad hoc to paper The synthetic MLP experiments on R3 and SO(3) accurately reflect the convergence behavior of full protein generative models.
    Section 3 uses these experiments to claim flow matching superiority in Section 7.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Protein-SE(3): Benchmarking SE(3)-based Generative Models for Protein Structure Design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KMIOKR4X

@misc{pith2026250720243,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Protein-SE(3): Benchmarking SE(3)-based Generative Models for Protein Structure Design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KMIOKR4X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20243}
}
read the original abstract

SE(3)-based generative models have shown great promise in protein geometry modeling and effective structure design. However, the field currently lacks a modularized benchmark to enable comprehensive investigation and fair comparison of different methods. In this paper, we propose Protein-SE(3), a new benchmark based on a unified training framework, which comprises protein scaffolding tasks, integrated generative models, high-level mathematical abstraction, and diverse evaluation metrics. Recent advanced generative models designed for protein scaffolding, from multiple perspectives like DDPM (Genie1 and Genie2), Score Matching (FrameDiff and RfDiffusion) and Flow Matching (FoldFlow and FrameFlow) are integrated into our framework. All integrated methods are fairly investigated with the same training dataset and evaluation metrics. Furthermore, we provide a high-level abstraction of the mathematical foundations behind the generative models, enabling fast prototyping of future algorithms without reliance on explicit protein structures. Accordingly, we release the first comprehensive benchmark built upon unified training framework for SE(3)-based protein structure design, which is publicly accessible at https://github.com/BruthYU/protein-se3.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.20243 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of our proposed Protein-SE(3) benchmark. By supporting a unified training framework, offering high-level mathematical abstractions, and enabling fair cross-comparisons, our proposed benchmark aims to provide researchers with new insights and promote progress in the field. Contributions of Protein-SE(3) are summarized as follows: • Unified Framework: We incorporate recently advances in protein structure desi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Protein frame parameterization and problem formulation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Experiments on R 3 Alignment with different generative modeling methods. Definition 2. Wasserstein Distance: The Wasserstein distance [15, 31] measures the minimum cost required to transform one probability distribution into another. For probability distributions µ and υ over a metric space χ (e.g. R 3 and SO(3)), let Γ(µ, υ) is the set of all joint distributions on χ × χ, the 1st-order Wasserstein distance is defin… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Experiments on SO(3) alignment with different generative modeling methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Frameflow achieves the most designable scaffolds (highest scTM) amongst all methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The distribution of secondary structure on unconditionally generated protein structures. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with alphafold 3

    Josh Abramson, Jonas Adler, Jack Dunger, Richard Evans, Tim Green, Alexander Pritzel, Olaf Ronneberger, Lindsay Willmore, Andrew J Ballard, Joshua Bambrick, et al. Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with alphafold 3. Nature, 630(8016):493–500, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Adjuvanting a subunit covid-19 vaccine to induce protective immunity

    Prabhu S Arunachalam, Alexandra C Walls, Nadia Golden, Caroline Atyeo, Stephanie Fischinger, Chunfeng Li, Pyone Aye, Mary Jane Navarro, Lilin Lai, Venkata Viswanadh Edara, et al. Adjuvanting a subunit covid-19 vaccine to induce protective immunity. Nature, 594(7862):253–258, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    The protein data bank

    Helen M Berman, John Westbrook, Zukang Feng, Gary Gilliland, T N Bhat, Helge Weissig, Ilya N Shindyalov, and Philip E Bourne. The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Research, 28(1): 235–242, 2000

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Bronstein, and Alexander Tong

    Joey Bose, Tara Akhound-Sadegh, Guillaume Huguet, Kilian FATRAS, Jarrid Rector-Brooks, Cheng-Hao Liu, Andrei Cristian Nica, Maksym Korablyov, Michael M. Bronstein, and Alexander Tong. SE(3)-stochastic flow matching for protein backbone generation. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , 2024. URL https: //openreview.net/forum...

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    The probability flow ode is provably fast.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:68552–68575, 2023

    Sitan Chen, Sinho Chewi, Holden Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Jianfeng Lu, and Adil Salim. The probability flow ode is provably fast.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:68552–68575, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Single- sequence protein structure prediction using a language model and deep learning

    Ratul Chowdhury, Nazim Bouatta, Surojit Biswas, Christina Floristean, Anant Kharkar, Koushik Roy, Charlotte Rochereau, Gustaf Ahdritz, Joanna Zhang, George M Church, et al. Single- sequence protein structure prediction using a language model and deep learning. Nature Biotechnology, 40(11):1617–1623, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    An all-atom protein generative model

    Alexander E Chu, Jinho Kim, Lucy Cheng, Gina El Nesr, Minkai Xu, Richard W Shuai, and Po-Ssu Huang. An all-atom protein generative model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(27):e2311500121, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Robust deep learning–based protein sequence design using proteinmpnn

    Justas Dauparas, Ivan Anishchenko, Nathaniel Bennett, Hua Bai, Robert J Ragotte, Lukas F Milles, Basile IM Wicky, Alexis Courbet, Rob J de Haas, Neville Bethel, et al. Robust deep learning–based protein sequence design using proteinmpnn. Science, 378(6615):49–56, 2022

    2022

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Pytorch lightning

    William Falcon et al. Pytorch lightning. GitHub. Note: https://github.com/Lightning- AI/lightning, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    One step diffusion via shortcut models

    Kevin Frans, Danijar Hafner, Sergey Levine, and Pieter Abbeel. One step diffusion via shortcut models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12557, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 33, pages 6840–6851, 2020

    2020

  4. [13]

    Shuangwei Hu, Martin Lundgren, and Antti J Niemi. Discrete frenet frame, inflection point soli- tons, and curve visualization with applications to folded proteins.Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear , and Soft Matter Physics, 83(6):061908, 2011

    2011

  5. [14]

    Highly accurate protein structure prediction with alphafold

    John Jumper, Richard Evans, Alexander Pritzel, Tim Green, Michael Figurnov, Olaf Ron- neberger, Kathryn Tunyasuvunakool, Russ Bates, Augustin Žídek, Anna Potapenko, et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with alphafold. nature, 596(7873):583–589, 2021

    2021

  6. [15]

    Mathematical methods of organizing and planning production

    Leonid V Kantorovich. Mathematical methods of organizing and planning production. Man- agement science, 6(4):366–422, 1960

    1960

  7. [16]

    Degiacomi, and Chris G

    Adam Leach, Sebastian M Schmon, Matteo T. Degiacomi, and Chris G. Willcocks. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models on SO(3) for rotational alignment. In ICLR 2022 Workshop on Geometrical and Topological Representation Learning , 2022. URL https://openreview. net/forum?id=BY...

    2022

  8. [17]

    Introduction to Riemannian manifolds, volume 2

    John M Lee. Introduction to Riemannian manifolds, volume 2. Springer, 2018. 10

    2018

  9. [18]

    Generating novel, designable, and diverse protein structures by equivariantly diffusing oriented residue clouds

    Yeqing Lin and Mohammed AlQuraishi. Generating novel, designable, and diverse protein structures by equivariantly diffusing oriented residue clouds. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 20978–21002, 2023

    2023

  10. [19]

    Out of many, one: Designing and scaffolding proteins at the scale of the structural universe with genie 2

    Yeqing Lin, Minji Lee, Zhao Zhang, and Mohammed AlQuraishi. Out of many, one: Designing and scaffolding proteins at the scale of the structural universe with genie 2. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15489, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Evolutionary-scale prediction of atomic-level protein structure with a language model

    Zeming Lin, Halil Akin, Roshan Rao, Brian Hie, Zhongkai Zhu, Wenting Lu, Nikita Smetanin, Robert Verkuil, Ori Kabeli, Yaniv Shmueli, et al. Evolutionary-scale prediction of atomic-level protein structure with a language model. Science, 379(6637):1123–1130, 2023

    2023

  12. [21]

    Flow matching for generative modeling

    Yaron Lipman, Ricky TQ Chen, Heli Ben-Hamu, Maximilian Nickel, and Matt Le. Flow matching for generative modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02747, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Diffusion probabilistic models for 3d point cloud generation

    Shitong Luo and Wei Hu. Diffusion probabilistic models for 3d point cloud generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 2837–2845, 2021

    2021

  14. [23]

    Normal distribution on the rotation group so(3)

    Dmitry I Nikolayev and Tatjana I Savyolov. Normal distribution on the rotation group so(3). Texture, Stress, and Microstructure, 29(3-4):201–233, 1997

    1997

  15. [24]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Guy Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Nina Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS...

    2019

  16. [25]

    Spectroscopic methods for analysis of protein secondary structure

    John T Pelton and Larry R McLean. Spectroscopic methods for analysis of protein secondary structure. Analytical biochemistry, 277(2):167–176, 2000

    2000

  17. [26]

    The advent of de novo proteins for cancer immunotherapy

    Alfredo Quijano-Rubio, Umut Y Ulge, Carl D Walkey, and Daniel-Adriano Silva. The advent of de novo proteins for cancer immunotherapy. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology, 56:119–128, 2020

    2020

  18. [27]

    Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Abhishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456, 2020

    2011 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Chai-1: Decoding the molecular interactions of life

    Chai Discovery team, Jacques Boitreaud, Jack Dent, Matthew McPartlon, Joshua Meier, Vinicius Reis, Alex Rogozhonikov, and Kevin Wu. Chai-1: Decoding the molecular interactions of life. BioRxiv, pages 2024–10, 2024

    2024

  20. [29]

    Fast and accurate protein structure search with foldseek

    Michel Van Kempen, Stephanie S Kim, Charlotte Tumescheit, Milot Mirdita, Jeongjae Lee, Cameron LM Gilchrist, Johannes Söding, and Martin Steinegger. Fast and accurate protein structure search with foldseek. Nature biotechnology, 42(2):243–246, 2024

    2024

  21. [30]

    Determination of protein secondary structure

    Sergei Yu Venyaminov and Jen Tsi Yang. Determination of protein secondary structure. In Circular dichroism and the conformational analysis of biomolecules , pages 69–107. Springer, 1996

    1996

  22. [31]

    The wasserstein distances

    Cédric Villani and Cédric Villani. The wasserstein distances. Optimal transport: old and new , pages 93–111, 2009

    2009

  23. [32]

    De novo design of protein structure and function with rfdiffusion

    Joseph L Watson, David Juergens, Nathaniel R Bennett, Brian L Trippe, Jason Yim, Helen E Eisenach, Woody Ahern, Andrew J Borst, Robert J Ragotte, Lukas F Milles, et al. De novo design of protein structure and function with rfdiffusion. Nature, 620(7976):1089–1100, 2023

    2023

  24. [33]

    Design of high-affinity binders to immune modulating receptors for cancer immunotherapy

    Wei Yang, Derrick R Hicks, Agnidipta Ghosh, Tristin A Schwartze, Brian Conventry, Inna Goreshnik, Aza Allen, Samer F Halabiya, Chan Johng Kim, Cynthia S Hinck, et al. Design of high-affinity binders to immune modulating receptors for cancer immunotherapy. Nature Communications...

    2001

  25. [34]

    Proteinbench: A holistic evaluation of protein foundation models

    Fei Ye, Zaixiang Zheng, Dongyu Xue, Yuning Shen, Lihao Wang, Yiming Ma, Yan Wang, Xinyou Wang, Xiangxin Zhou, and Quanquan Gu. Proteinbench: A holistic evaluation of protein foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.06744, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Se (3) diffusion model with application to protein backbone generation

    Jason Yim, Brian L Trippe, Valentin De Bortoli, Emile Mathieu, Arnaud Doucet, Regina Barzilay, and Tommi Jaakkola. Se (3) diffusion model with application to protein backbone generation. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 40001–4003...

    2023

  27. [36]

    Jason Yim, Andrew Campbell, Emile Mathieu, Andrew Y . K. Foong, Michael Gastegger, Jose Jimenez-Luna, Sarah Lewis, Victor Garcia Satorras, Bastiaan S. Veeling, Frank Noe, Regina Barzilay, and Tommi Jaakkola. Improved motif-scaffolding with SE(3) flow match- ing. Transactions o...

    2024

  28. [37]

    Reqflow: Rectified quaternion flow for efficient and high-quality protein backbone generation

    Angxiao Yue, Zichong Wang, and Hongteng Xu. Reqflow: Rectified quaternion flow for efficient and high-quality protein backbone generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14637, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Tm-align: a protein structure alignment algorithm based on the tm-score

    Yang Zhang and Jeffrey Skolnick. Tm-align: a protein structure alignment algorithm based on the tm-score. Nucleic acids research, 33(7):2302–2309, 2005

    2005

  30. [39]

    NX i=1 ∥ϵt − ϵθ(xt, t)∥2 # = Et,x0,ϵ

    Zhuoqi Zheng, Bo Zhang, Bozitao Zhong, Kexin Liu, Zhengxin Li, Junjie Zhu, Jinyu Yu, Ting Wei, and Hai-Feng Chen. Scaffold-lab: Critical evaluation and ranking of protein backbone generation methods in a unified framework. bioRxiv, pages 2024–02, 2024. 12 A Theoretical Formula...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.