PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

SE(3)-Stochastic Flow Matching for Protein Backbone Generation

Joey Bose, Tara Akhound-Sadegh, Guillaume Huguet, Kilian FATRAS, Jarrid Rector-Brooks, Cheng-Hao Liu, Andrei Cristian Nica, Maksym Korablyov, Michael M. Bronstein, Alexander Tong

generative modelsProteinsEquivarianceRiemannianFlow MatchingGenerative models
97.40100
Fused
band ≈ ±17 pct pts (from σ = 0.33)
96.30100
Mimo
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.45)
96.70100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±24 pct pts (from σ = 0.49)

OpenReview ground truth

Accepted

TL;DR — A Flow Matching for the de novo design of protein backbones

Abstract

The computational design of novel protein structures has the potential to impact numerous scientific disciplines greatly. Toward this goal, we introduce \foldflow, a series of novel generative models of increasing modeling power based on the flow-matching paradigm over $3\mathrm{D}$ rigid motions---i.e. the group $\mathrm{SE(3)}$---enabling accurate modeling of protein backbones. We first introduce $\text{FoldFlow-Base}$, a simulation-free approach to learning deterministic continuous-time dynamics and matching invariant target distributions on $\mathrm{SE(3)}$. We next accelerate training by incorporating Riemannian optimal transport to create $\text{FoldFlow-OT}$, leading to the construction of both more simple and stable flows. Finally, we design \foldflowsfm, coupling both Riemannian OT and simulation-free training to learn stochastic continuous-time dynamics over $\mathrm{SE(3)}$. Our family of $\text{FoldFlow}$, generative models offers several key advantages over previous approaches to the generative modeling of proteins: they are more stable and faster to train than diffusion-based approaches, and our models enjoy the ability to map any invariant source distribution to any invariant target distribution over $\mathrm{SE(3)}$. Empirically, we validate $\text{FoldFlow}$, on protein backbone generation of up to $300$ amino acids leading to high-quality designable, diverse, and novel samples.

Author context

Most prolific author: 11 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Battle history — 30 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 68% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 30)