Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Lavik Jain
dblp:424/7464
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100% | |
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Language models and text generation · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Bioinformatics and computational biology
phylogenetics |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Evolutionary Reasoning Does Not Arise in Standard Usage of Protein Language Models · NeurIPS 2025 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › phylogenetics
phylogenetic inference |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Evolutionary Reasoning Does Not Arise in Standard Usage of Protein Language Models · NeurIPS 2025 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › neural language model
protein language model |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Evolutionary Reasoning Does Not Arise in Standard Usage of Protein Language Models · NeurIPS 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
tree-based objective · 1.7transformer · 1.7state space model · 1.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Evolutionary Reasoning Does Not Arise in Standard Usage of Protein Language ModelsabstractProtein language models (PLMs) are often assumed to capture evolutionary information by training on large protein sequence datasets. Yet it remains unclear whether PLMs can reason about evolution—that is, infer evolutionary relationships between sequences. We test this capability by evaluating whether standard PLM usage, frozen or fine-tuned embeddings with distance-based comparison, supports evolutionary reasoning. Existing PLMs consistently fail to recover phylogenetic structure, despite strong performance on sequence-level tasks such as masked-token and contact prediction. We present Phyla, a hybrid state-space and transformer model that jointly processes multiple sequences and is trained using a tree-based objective across 3,000 phylogenies spanning diverse protein families. Phyla outperforms the next-best PLM by 9\% on tree reconstruction and 23\% on taxonomic clustering while remaining alignment- and guide-tree-free. Although classical alignment pipelines achieve higher absolute accuracy, Phyla narrows the gap and achieves markedly lower end-to-end runtime. Applied to real data, Phyla reconstructs biologically accurate clades in the tree of life and resolves genome-scale relationships among Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates. These findings suggest that, under standard usage, evolutionary reasoning does not reliably emerge from large-scale sequence modeling. Instead, Phyla shows that models trained with phylogenetic supervision can reason about evolution more effectively, offering a biologically grounded path toward evolutionary foundation models. Yasha Ektefaie, Andrew Shen, Lavik Jain, Maha R. Farhat, Marinka Zitnik |
NeurIPS | 3 |