From Words to Amino Acids: Does the Curse of Depth Persist?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Protein language models (PLMs) have become widely adopted as general-purpose models, demonstrating strong performance in protein engineering and de novo design. Like large language models (LLMs), they are typically trained as deep transformers with next-token or masked-token prediction objectives on massive sequence corpora and are scaled by increasing model depth. Recent work on autoregressive LLMs has identified the Curse of Depth: many later layers contribute little to the final output predictions. These findings naturally raise the question of whether a similar depth inefficiency also appears in PLMs, where many widely used models are not autoregressive, and some are multimodal, accepting both protein sequence and structure as input. In this work, we present a depth analysis of seven popular PLM families across model scales, spanning autoregressive, masked, and diffusion objectives, and quantify how layer contributions evolve with depth using a unified set of probing-, perturbation-, and downstream-evaluation measurements. Across models, we observe consistent depth-dependent patterns that extend prior findings on LLMs: a large fraction of task-relevant computation is concentrated in a subset of layers, while the remaining layers mainly provide incremental refinement of the final prediction. These trends persist beyond sequence-only settings and also appear in multimodal PLMs. Taken together, our results suggest that depth inefficiency is a common feature of modern PLMs, motivating future work on more depth-efficient architectures and training methods.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Feb 2026.
Builds on
24 of 43 references.
References · 24
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
- 2019Similarity of Neural Network Representations Revisitedcited by 1,695
- 2019What Does BERT Look At? An Analysis of BERT's Attentioncited by 994
- 2023Eliciting Latent Predictions from Transformers with the Tuned Lenscited by 579
- 2019What do you learn from context? Probing for sentence structure in contextualized word representationscited by 436
- 2025Layer by Layer: Uncovering Hidden Representations in Language Modelscited by 293
- 2019Evaluating Protein Transfer Learning with TAPEcited by 229
- 2024The Unreasonable Ineffectiveness of the Deeper Layerscited by 219
- 2022ProGen2: Exploring the Boundaries of Protein Language Modelscited by 156
- 2024The Remarkable Robustness of LLMs: Stages of Inference?cited by 138
- 2020ProGen: Language Modeling for Protein Generationcited by 127
12 more
- 2024Diffusion Language Models Are Versatile Protein Learnerscited by 93
- 2024DPLM-2: A Multimodal Diffusion Protein Language Modelcited by 59
- 2025The Curse of Depth in Large Language Modelscited by 58
- 2025Inner Thinking Transformer: Leveraging Dynamic Depth Scaling to Foster Adaptive Internal Thinkingcited by 56
- 2025Do Language Models Use Their Depth Efficiently?cited by 48
- 2025La-Proteina: Atomistic Protein Generation via Partially Latent Flow Matchingcited by 26
- 2024On the Inductive Bias of Stacking Towards Improving Reasoningcited by 18
- 2022Geometry-Complete Perceptron Networks for 3D Molecular Graphscited by 15
- 2025An All-Atom Generative Model for Designing Protein Complexescited by 9
- 2026From Growing to Looping: A Unified View of Iterative Computation in LLMscited by 6
- 2025Do Depth-Grown Models Overcome the Curse of Depth? An In-Depth Analysiscited by 5
- 2024Landscape-Aware Growing: The Power of a Little LAGcited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.