Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · November 3, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Generative models of protein conformational ensembles inherit much of their design from structure prediction for folded proteins. Ordered and disordered proteins, however, occupy distinct structural regimes, and we investigate how design choices hold up across them. Using a minimal C$α$ flow-matching model, we ablate choices of architecture, sequence conditioning, rigid-body alignment and training source, and evaluate each variant against experimental SAXS and NMR chemical-shift data partitioned into ordered, disordered, multi-domain and transitional proteins. Mixture-of-experts routing, a static pair representation and a disorder probe have no detectable effect, a smaller protein language model performs worse on ordered proteins but not on disordered ones, and alignment in the loss degrades agreement with SAXS. Replacing coarse-grained simulations of disordered proteins with fragment-assembled ensembles improves agreement with chemical shifts at a cost to SAXS, while an equal mixture of the two keeps most of the gain at a smaller cost. This points to the training data, rather than the architecture, as the main constraint.