General Mechanism of Evolution Shared by Proteins and Words

Li-Min Wang, Hsing-Yi Lai, Sun-Ting Tsai, Chen Siang Ng, Kevin Sheng-Kai Ma, Shan-Jyun Wu, Meng-Xue Tsai, Yi-Ching Su, Daw-Wei Wang, Tzay-Ming Hong · Dec 28, 2020 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Complex systems, such as life and languages, are governed by principles of evolution. The analogy and comparison between biology and linguistics\cite{alphafold2, RoseTTAFold, lang_virus, cell language, faculty1, language of gene, Protein linguistics, dictionary, Grammar of pro_dom, complexity, genomics_nlp, InterPro, language modeling, Protein language modeling} provide a computational foundation for characterizing and analyzing protein sequences, human corpora, and their evolution. However, no general mathematical formula has been proposed so far to illuminate the origin of quantitative hallmarks shared by life and language. Here we show several new statistical relationships shared by proteins and words, which inspire us to establish a general mechanism of evolution with explicit formulations that can incorporate both old and new characteristics. We found natural selection can be quantified via the entropic formulation by the principle of least effort to determine the sequence variation that survives in evolution. Besides, the origin of power law behavior and how changes in the environment stimulate the emergence of new proteins and words can also be explained via the introduction of function connection network. Our results demonstrate not only the correspondence between genetics and linguistics over their different hierarchies but also new fundamental physical properties for the evolution of complex adaptive systems. We anticipate our statistical tests can function as quantitative criteria to examine whether an evolution theory of sequence is consistent with the regularity of real data. In the meantime, their correspondence broadens the bridge to exchange existing knowledge, spurs new interpretations, and opens Pandora's box to release several potentially revolutionary challenges. For example, does linguistic arbitrariness conflict with the dogma that structure determines function?

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.