SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Arthur Liang

Publications and source records attributed to Arthur Liang.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Greater than the Sum of Its Parts: Building Substructure into Protein Encoding Models

Protein representation learning has advanced rapidly with the scale-up of sequence and structure supervision, but most models still encode proteins either as per-residue token sequences or as single global embeddings. This overlooks a defining property of protein organization: proteins are built from recurrent, evolutionarily conserved substructures that concentrate biochemical activity and mediate core molecular functions. Although substructures such as domains and functional sites are systematically cataloged, they are rarely used as training signals or representation units in protein models. We introduce Magneton, an environment for developing substructure-aware protein models. Magneton provides (1) a dataset of 530,601 proteins annotated with over 1.7 million substructures spanning 13,075 types, (2) a training framework for incorporating substructures into existing protein models, and (3) a benchmark suite of 13 tasks probing representations at the residue, substructural, and protein levels. Using Magneton, we develop substructure-tuning, a supervised fine-tuning method that distills substructural knowledge into pretrained protein models. Across state-of-the-art sequence- and structure-based models, substructure-tuning improves function prediction, yields more consistent representations of substructure types never observed during tuning, and shows that substructural supervision provides information that is complementary to global structure inputs. The Magneton environment, datasets, and substructure-tuned models are all openly available (https://github.com/rcalef/magneton/).

q-bio.QM

Knowing What You Know Is Not Enough: Large Language Model Confidences Don't Align With Their Actions

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in agentic and multi-turn workflows where they are tasked to perform actions of significant consequence. In order to deploy them reliably and manage risky outcomes in these settings, it is helpful to access model uncertainty estimates. However, confidence elicitation methods for LLMs are typically not evaluated directly in agentic settings; instead, they are evaluated on static datasets, such as Q&A benchmarks. In this work we investigate the relationship between confidence estimates elicited in static settings and the behavior of LLMs in interactive settings. We uncover a significant action-belief gap -- LLMs frequently take actions that contradict their elicited confidences. In a prediction market setting, we find that models often bet against their own high-confidence predictions; in a tool-use setting, models fail to reliably invoke information-seeking tools when their internal confidence is low; and in a user-challenge setting, models change their answers when they have high confidence in them, whilst sticking to answers they have low confidence in. Crucially, we show that static calibration is an insufficient predictor of consistency in the above dynamic settings, as stronger, better calibrated models are somtimes less consistent than their smaller and weaker open-source counterparts. Our results highlight a critical blind spot in current evaluation methodologies: ensuring that a model knows what it knows does not guarantee that it will act rationally on that knowledge.

cs.LG