Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 30 references

Scaling Up ESM2 Architectures for Long Protein Sequences Analysis: Long and Quantized Approaches

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that ESM2 protein language models can be retargeted to accept 2,048 amino acids by switching to local attention, and that the resulting long and quantized variants match or beat the standard models on protein function…

desk verdict Useful engineering extension of ESM2 to 2,048 amino acids with released weights, but the 'superior performance' headline is undercut by unequal continued pretraining. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07747 v1 pith:O5JGYMJX submitted 2025-01-13 cs.LG q-bio.QM

Gabriel Bianchin de Oliveira , Helio Pedrini , Zanoni Dias This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGq-bio.QM
keywords ESM2proteinfunctionpredictionlongsequenceslocalattentionquantizationLoRACAFA5Fmax
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

This paper claims that the standard ESM2 protein language models, limited to 1,022 amino acids, can be adapted to accept 2,048 amino acids by replacing global self-attention with local attention and continuing pretraining on reviewed protein sequences. It also introduces an int4-quantized version, using LoRA, that cuts memory use for larger models. On a CAFA5-derived protein function prediction benchmark, the long and quantized embeddings achieve Fmax at or above the standard models in most architecture and ontology combinations. The practical point is that proteins longer than the old limit can be represented without truncation, and the released variants can be used as drop-in embedding extractors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is local self-attention with a fixed window of 1,024 tokens, replacing global attention and reducing complexity from $O(n^2)$ to $O(nk)$, where $n$ is sequence length and $k$ is the window size. Position embeddings are copied to cover 2,050 positions, following the observation that copying context representations is more effective than random initialization. The quantized variants combine int4 weight representation with LoRA adaptation and bfloat16 computation, reducing the memory footprint of larger models by roughly four times.

What would settle it

Run the standard ESM2 T12, T30, and T33 models through the same five-epoch continued pretraining on the same 569,793 reviewed proteins and evaluate Fmax on the same test sets; if the re-pretrained standard models match or exceed the long and quantized results, the performance advantage is not caused by local attention or int4 quantization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the ESM2 architecture family can be extended to twice its original input length without retraining from scratch, by copying the position embeddings to 2,050 positions and changing the attention modules from global to local form with a window of 1,024 tokens. The authors further claim that long versions and int4-quantized LoRA versions of ESM2 T6, T12, T30, and T33, after five epochs of continued pretraining on 569,793 reviewed proteins, produce embeddings whose protein function prediction Fmax is equal to or better than standard ESM2 in most settings, with especially consistent gains on proteins longer than 1,024 amino acids.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that the standard ESM2 baselines needed no additional pretraining, while the long and quantized models were pretrained for five epochs on 569,793 reviewed proteins, so if that extra pretraining alone drove the Fmax gains, the superior-performance claim collapses even though the 2,048-amino-acid engineering claim would still hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Protein function prediction pipelines can feed sequences up to 2,048 amino acids directly, avoiding sliding-window fragmentation for most proteins longer than the original limit.
  • The released long and quantized ESM2 variants can serve as embedding backbones for other protein tasks, such as secondary structure and contact map prediction, without truncation.
  • Quantized variants make larger ESM2 models practical in memory-constrained environments; the T33 quantized model loads in about a quarter of the memory of the long version.
  • Because the long and quantized models were pretrained for five epochs on a large reviewed protein set, downstream users inherit that continued pretraining, not only the architectural change.
  • The same local-attention adaptation could be applied to other transformer-based protein models, an extension the authors explicitly flag for future work.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The performance gains attributed to the long and quantized architectures are confounded with the extra continued pretraining: a controlled comparison that runs standard ESM2 through the same five-epoch Swiss-Prot pretraining would separate architectural benefit from data benefit.
  • The int4 quantization strategy appears to pay off only at larger scales, since the smallest quantized model (T6) loads in more memory than its standard or long counterpart.
  • For proteins beyond 2,048 amino acids, the pipeline still falls back to sliding-window averaging, so the advantage of the long models may shrink on very long sequences even if it holds for the 1,024–2,048 range.
  • The Fmax differences are small, so the practical value may lie mainly in the larger input limit and lower memory footprint rather than in large accuracy improvements.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents extended-context versions of the ESM2 protein language models, increasing the maximum input length to 2,048 amino acids, and int4/LoRA quantized variants of these long models. The adaptation copies the original positional embeddings to 2,050 positions and replaces global self-attention with local windowed attention over a window of 1,024 tokens. The authors continue pretraining the long and quantized models on 569,793 Swiss-Prot proteins for 5 epochs, then extract embeddings and train AutoML classifiers for Gene Ontology protein function prediction on a CAFA5-derived dataset. They report Fmax scores in Tables 4 and 5 and claim that the long and quantized embeddings are superior to the standard ESM2 embeddings in most cases.

Significance. If the engineering contribution holds, the released models are a useful practical resource: they allow protein language model embeddings to be computed for sequences up to roughly twice the original ESM2 limit, with local attention reducing the quadratic cost of global attention, and the quantized variants lower memory use for the larger architectures. The authors explicitly release the model weights on HuggingFace, which is a concrete reproducibility advantage. The architectural modifications are clearly described and the memory comparison in Table 2 is informative. However, the headline performance claim is currently not supported because the comparison is confounded by an asymmetric continued-pretraining protocol. With a controlled baseline, the engineering and performance claims could both be assessed fairly.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, pretraining description; Tables 4 and 5] The comparison supporting the 'superior performance' claim is confounded. The long and quantized models were continued-pretrained for 5 epochs on 569,793 Swiss-Prot proteins with learning rate 10^-5 and the AdamW optimizer, whereas the standard ESM2 baselines in Tables 4 and 5 are the original released checkpoints with no such continued pretraining. Reported differences such as T12 BPO Long 0.532 vs Standard 0.505 and T33 BPO Quantized 0.549 vs Standard 0.540 may therefore be caused by additional domain-specific training rather than by the windowed attention or quantization. The authors should add a controlled baseline: either continue pretraining the standard ESM2 architecture on the same Swiss-Prot data for 5 epochs, or evaluate the long and quantized versions after architectural adaptation without continued pretraining. Without this control, the abstract and Section 1 claim of superior performance is not supported.
  2. [Section 2, paragraph 4; Section 3, paragraph 1] The maximum input length is stated inconsistently. Section 2 says the context representation is copied to 2,050 positions with 2,048 amino acids and 2 special tokens, while Section 3 says the long and quantized models accept 2,046 amino acids and the example uses a slice of 2,046 amino acids. Since the central contribution is 'doubling the input size limit to 2,048 amino acids,' the implemented and evaluated limits must be stated unambiguously and consistently.
  3. [Tables 4 and 5] The performance comparison reports only single Fmax values with no confidence intervals, repeated runs, or significance testing. Many differences are small, such as T6 MFO Long 0.757 vs Standard 0.754 and T30 CCO Long 0.742 vs Standard 0.739, and the conclusion 'superior in most cases' rests on margins of about 0.01 to 0.03. Repeating the classification experiments or reporting significance tests would strengthen the claim considerably.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 2] The sentence stating that quantization reduces memory by approximately four times for the largest ESM2 architecture is only true for T33; for T6 and T12 the quantized models require more memory than the standard and long versions. The text does acknowledge this, but stating the crossover point explicitly would improve clarity.
  2. [References] The reference to Lin et al. contains a typo: 'Language Nodel' should be 'Language Model'.
  3. [Section 3] The pipeline and dataset are inherited from Oliveira et al. 2024, but the paper does not describe how the CAFA5-derived test set was separated from the training set. A sentence on the splitting procedure would improve reproducibility, and releasing the evaluation code would allow readers to rerun the comparisons.
  4. [Section 2] The description of loading models in int4 format with LoRA and bfloat16 does not state whether the LoRA adapters are kept separate during inference or merged into the base model. Clarifying this would make the quantized deployment story more complete.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the long/quantized architectures are evaluated on a held-out CAFA5-derived test set, and the engineering claim is an architectural construction.

full rationale

The paper does not contain a circular derivation chain. The central engineering claim is that copying the ESM2 context representation to 2,050 positions and switching to local attention with window size 1,024 doubles the input limit to 2,048 amino acids; this is a direct architectural construction, not a self-referential prediction. The performance claim is evaluated by extracting embeddings from the final layer of each model, training an AutoKeras classifier on a validation set, and computing Fmax on a held-out test set derived from CAFA5. The test labels are external to the training procedure, so the reported Fmax values are not fitted inputs renamed as predictions. The self-citation of Oliveira et al. 2024 is used only to specify the evaluation pipeline and dataset, both of which are described in the paper itself and rest on the external CAFA5 benchmark; this does not constitute load-bearing circularity. The lack of continued pretraining for the standard ESM2 baseline is a legitimate experimental-fairness concern and may explain part of the observed gains, but it is not circular reasoning: it concerns whether the comparison isolates the architectural change, not whether the result is assumed by construction. No equation in the paper reduces to another by construction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the conclusion.

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

The paper introduces no new theoretical entities. It relies on an inherited transformer architecture, a borrowed attention mechanism, and several hand-chosen hyperparameters. The main unforced premises are the sufficiency of 5 pretraining epochs and the adequacy of local attention, both untested in isolation.

free parameters (4)
  • attention window size k = 1024
    Chosen by hand, matching the original ESM2 input limit. Central to the local attention design, not derived from data.
  • context length = 2050
    Set to 2,048 amino acids plus CLS and EOS. Ad hoc choice for the claimed doubling.
  • pretraining epochs = 5
    Chosen by hand for continued pretraining on Swiss-Prot; no early stopping or ablation.
  • learning rate = 1e-5
    Fixed for all models with AdamW, not justified by experiments.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Local attention with a window of 1,024 preserves enough protein sequence information for function prediction.
    Adopted from Longformer and asserted in Section 2, Figure 1. The evaluation implicitly tests this, but the missing baseline does not isolate it.
  • standard math Context copying is better than random initialization for extending ESM2 position embeddings.
    Stated in Section 2, citing Beltagy et al. 2020. Accepted from prior work.
  • ad hoc to paper Five epochs of continued pretraining on Swiss-Prot is sufficient to adapt ESM2 to long inputs.
    Chosen by the authors without ablations; load-bearing for the comparison in Tables 4 and 5.
  • domain assumption ESM2 embeddings are a valid substrate for protein function classification, and Fmax on the CAFA5 test set is an appropriate metric.
    Standard practice in the field, cited from Radivojac 2013 and Oliveira et al. 2024.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scaling Up ESM2 Architectures for Long Protein Sequences Analysis: Long and Quantized Approaches." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O5JGYMJX

@misc{pith2026250107747,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scaling Up ESM2 Architectures for Long Protein Sequences Analysis: Long and Quantized Approaches},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O5JGYMJX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07747}
}
read the original abstract

Various approaches utilizing Transformer architectures have achieved state-of-the-art results in Natural Language Processing (NLP). Based on this success, numerous architectures have been proposed for other types of data, such as in biology, particularly for protein sequences. Notably among these are the ESM2 architectures, pre-trained on billions of proteins, which form the basis of various state-of-the-art approaches in the field. However, the ESM2 architectures have a limitation regarding input size, restricting it to 1,022 amino acids, which necessitates the use of preprocessing techniques to handle sequences longer than this limit. In this paper, we present the long and quantized versions of the ESM2 architectures, doubling the input size limit to 2,048 amino acids.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07747 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Self-attention mechanisms. In the global self-attention mechanism, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. In the initial stage, referred to as embedding extraction, we extracted embed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pipeline for evaluating protein embeddings from ESM2 architectures. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J., Bambrick, J., Bodenstein, S

    Abramson, J., Adler, J., Dunger, J., Evans, R., Green, T., Pritzel, A., Ronneberger, O., Willmore, L., Ballard, A. J., Bambrick, J., Bodenstein, S. W., Evans, D. A., Hung, C.-C., O’Neill, M., Reiman, D., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Wu, Z., Žemgulytė, A., Arvaniti, E., Beattie, C., Bertolli, O., Bridgland, A., Cherepanov, A., Congreve, M., Cowen-Rivers, A. I., Co...

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Ao, J., Wang, R., Zhou, L., Wang, C., Ren, S., Wu, Y., Liu, S., Ko, T., Li, Q., Zhang, Y., Wei, Z., Qian, Y., Li, J., and Wei, F. (2021). SpeechT5: Unified-Modal Encoder-Decoder Pre-Training for Spoken Language Processing . arXiv:2110.07205 , pages 1--16

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Arnab, A., Dehghani, M., Heigold, G., Sun, C., Lu c i \'c , M., and Schmid, C. (2021). ViViT: A Video Vision Transformer . In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 6836--6846

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    A., Blake, J

    Ashburner, M., Ball, C. A., Blake, J. A., Botstein, D., Butler, H., Cherry, J. M., Davis, A. P., Dolinski, K., Dwight, S. S., Eppig, J. T., Harris, M. A., Hill, D. P., Issel-Tarver, L., Kasarskis, A., Lewis, S., Matese, J. C., Richardson, J. E., Ringwald, M., Rubin, G. M., and Sherlock, G. (2000). Gene Ontology: Tool for the Unification of Biology . Natur...

    work page 2000

  5. [5]

    E., and Cohan, A

    Beltagy, I., Peters, M. E., and Cohan, A. (2020). Longformer: The long-document transformer. arXiv:2004.05150 , pages 1--17

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    and Shen, Y

    Cao, Y. and Shen, Y. (2021). TALE: Transformer-based protein function Annotation with joint sequence--Label Embedding . Bioinformatics , 37(18):2825--2833

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    M., Rajesh, A., Sinha, S., and Adams, P

    Chua, Z. M., Rajesh, A., Sinha, S., and Adams, P. D. (2024). PROTGOAT: Improved automated protein function predictions using Protein Language Models . bioRxiv , pages 1--15

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    and Zettlemoyer, L

    Dettmers, T. and Zettlemoyer, L. (2023). The case for 4-bit precision: k-bit Inference Scaling Laws . In 40th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , pages 7750--7774

    work page 2023

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Dosovitskiy, A., Beyer, L., Kolesnikov, A., Weissenborn, D., Zhai, X., Unterthiner, T., Dehghani, M., Minderer, M., Heigold, G., Gelly, S., Uszkoreit, J., and Houlsby, N. (2020). An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale . arXiv:2010.11929 , pa...

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Elnaggar, A., Heinzinger, M., Dallago, C., Rehawi, G., Wang, Y., Jones, L., Gibbs, T., Feher, T., Angerer, C., Steinegger, M., Bhowmik, D., and Rost, B. (2021). ProtTrans: Toward understanding the language of life through self-supervised learning . IEEE Transactions on Pattern...

    2021

  3. [11]

    D., Piovesan, D., Joshi, P., Reade, W., and Howard, A

    Friedberg, I., Radivojac, P., Paolis, C. D., Piovesan, D., Joshi, P., Reade, W., and Howard, A. (2023). CAFA 5 Protein Function Prediction

    2023

  4. [12]

    Jin, H., Chollet, F., Song, Q., and Hu, X. (2023). AutoKeras: An AutoML Library for Deep Learning . Journal of Machine Learning Research , 24(6):1--6

    2023

  5. [13]

    and Hoehndorf, R

    Kulmanov, M. and Hoehndorf, R. (2019). DeepGOPlus: Improved Protein Function Prediction from Sequence . Bioinformatics , 36(2):422--429

    2019

  6. [14]

    H., and Kang, J

    Lee, J., Yoon, W., Kim, S., Kim, D., Kim, S., So, C. H., and Kang, J. (2020). BioBERT: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining . Bioinformatics , 36(4):1234--1240

    2020

  7. [15]

    Lin, Z., Akin, H., Rao, R., Hie, B., Zhu, Z., Lu, W., Smetanin, N., Verkuil, R., Kabeli, O., Shmueli, Y., Costa, A. d. S., Fazel-Zarandi, M., Sercu, T., Candido, S., and Rives, A. (2023). Evolutionary-Scale Prediction of Atomic-Level Protein Structure with a Language Nodel . S...

    2023

  8. [16]

    and Hutter, F

    Loshchilov, I. and Hutter, F. (2017). Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization . arXiv:1711.05101 , pages 1--19

    2017 arXiv

  9. [17]

    B., Pedrini, H., and Dias, Z

    Oliveira, G. B., Pedrini, H., and Dias, Z. (2023). TEMPROT: Protein Function Annotation using Transformers Embeddings and Homology Search . BMC Bioinformatics , 24(1):1--16

    2023

  10. [18]

    B., Pedrini, H., and Dias, Z

    Oliveira, G. B., Pedrini, H., and Dias, Z. (2024). Integrating Transformers and AutoML for Protein Function Prediction . In 46th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) , pages 1--5. IEEE

    2024

  11. [19]

    Radivojac, P. (2013). A (not so) quick introduction to protein function prediction. Indiana University, USA

    2013

  12. [20]

    UniProt: the universal protein knowledgebase in 2023

    The UniProt Consortium (2023). UniProt: the universal protein knowledgebase in 2023 . Nucleic Acids Research , 51(D1):D523--D531

    2023

  13. [21]

    Valentini, G. (2010). True Path Rule Hierarchical Ensembles for Genome-Wide Gene Function Prediction . IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics , 8(3):832--847

    2010

  14. [22]

    N., Kaiser, ., and Polosukhin, I

    Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, ., and Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need . In 30th Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , pages 5998--6008

    2017

  15. [23]

    A., Fenoy, E

    Vitale, R., Bugnon, L. A., Fenoy, E. L., Milone, D. H., and Stegmayer, G. (2024). Evaluating large language models for annotating proteins. Briefings in Bioinformatics , 25(3):bbae177

    2024

  16. [24]

    Yeung, W., Zhou, Z., Li, S., and Kannan, N. (2023). Alignment-free estimation of sequence conservation for identifying functional sites using protein sequence embeddings. Briefings in Bioinformatics , 24(1):bbac599

    2023

  17. [25]

    H., Kolehmainen, J., Shivakumar, P

    Yu, Y., Yang, C.-H. H., Kolehmainen, J., Shivakumar, P. G., Gu, Y., Ren, S. R. R., Luo, Q., Gourav, A., Chen, I.-F., Liu, Y.-C., Dinh, T., Gandhe, A., Filimonov, D., Ghosh, S., Stolcke, A., Rastow, A., and Bulyko, I. (2023). Low-rank adaptation of large language model rescorin...

    2023

  18. [26]

    Zhapa-Camacho, F., Tang, Z., Kulmanov, M., and Hoehndorf, R. (2024). Predicting protein functions using positive-unlabeled ranking with ontology-based priors . bioRxiv , pages 1--9

    2024

  19. [27]

    R., Lee, A

    Zhou, N., Jiang, Y., Bergquist, T. R., Lee, A. J., Kacsoh, B. Z., Crocker, A. W., Lewis, K. A., Georghiou, G., Nguyen, H. N., Hamid, M. N., Davis, L., Dogan, T., Atalay, V., Rifaioglu, A. S., Dalkıran, A., Cetin Atalay, R., Zhang, C., Hurto, R. L., Freddolino, P. L., Zhang, Y....

    2019

  20. [28]

    Zhou, Z., Ji, Y., Li, W., Dutta, P., Davuluri, R., and Liu, H. (2023). DNABERT-2: Efficient foundation model and benchmark for multi-species genomes . arXiv:2306.15006 , pages 1--23

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Zhu, Y.-H., Zhang, C., Yu, D.-J., and Zhang, Y. (2022). Integrating Unsupervised Language Model with Triplet Neural Networks for Protein Gene Ontology Prediction . PLoS Computational Biology , 18(12):e1010793

    2022

  22. [30]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence '...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.