Papers › Self-Improvement Imitation with Biologically Guided Search for Protein Design Under...
Self-Improvement Imitation with Biologically Guided Search for Protein Design Under Oracle Budgets
Ashima Khanna, Dominik Grimm
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Protein sequence optimization under tight oracle budgets requires methods that explore vast combinatorial spaces while making each evaluation informative. Existing reinforcement learning and off-policy generative approaches often degrade under surrogate noise, and position-agnostic mutation proposals risk disrupting functionally critical residues. We introduce SILO, a trajectory-level self-improvement imitation framework for oracle-budgeted protein design. SILO uses a hierarchical edit policy that decomposes each mutation into a position choice followed by a residue choice. In each active-learning round, the policy samples candidate trajectories via incremental stochastic beam search without replacement (SBS), and a UCB-based proxy ensemble, combined with an alanine-scan fitness score (AFS), selects candidates with functionally relevant edits for in silico oracle evaluation. The policy is then updated by next-action cross-entropy imitation on the round's best oracle-labeled trajectories, avoiding value-function estimation. Across eight reproduced protein fitness landscapes and five strong baselines from prior work, SILO achieves the highest maximum and top-100 mean fitness on 8 of 8 landscapes within our evaluations, often exhibiting faster early-stage improvement. In low-data and noisy-proxy stress tests on two landscapes per setting, SILO remains competitive or best when several baselines degrade. Ablations show that SBS with AFS account for much of the gains, with iterative imitation providing additional improvement. Code is available at: https://github.com/grimmlab/SILO.git
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2605.26690")
Code
Syntology Ran 6 of 8 code samples harvested from 3 repositories linked to this paper; 2 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 3 ran · our draft was wrong; 3 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 6 samples from 3 repositories, 4 ran; 2 identical to code first harvested elsewhere. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
8 samples harvested; 6 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 2 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 5 of the 8 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from 3 repositories linked to this paper, official or community; each sample names its own and says which. Some samples are identical code Syntology first harvested from another repository; for those, this paper's copy is not located and its licence is not recorded. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
50b2344935528dab · report
87be593b7402674f · report
48932a6193ef2693 · report
883df0e10ee73f1c · report
dbcfa1ea15abeec5 · report
d59873ee5b23e4b1 · report
a0962a1a5631fcc1 · report
7a638b085246b050 · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2605.26690, was issued in May 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections