JEPA-DNA: Grounding Genomic Foundation Models through Joint-Embedding Predictive Architectures
Authors: Ariel Larey, Elay Dahan, Amit Bleiweiss, Raizy Kellerman, Guy Leib, Omri Nayshool, Dan Ofer, Tal Zinger, +10 more
Organizations: Applied AI Architecture, NVIDIA, Israel. · Worldwide Field Ops, NVIDIA, Israel. · Developer Programs, NVIDIA, Israel. · Cancer Research Center and Wohl Institute of Translational Medicine, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. · Windreich Department of AI and Human Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, USA.
Genomic Foundation Models (GFMs) typically rely on Masked Language Modeling (MLM) or Next-Token Prediction (NTP) to learn the "Laws of Nature". While effective at capturing local syntax, these generative paradigms prioritize token-level reconstruction over high-level functional context. We introduce JEPA-DNA, a model-agnostic continual training framework that integrates a Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecture (JEPA) with traditional generative objectives. By supervising global sequence embeddings in a latent space, JEPA-DNA forces models to predict the functional representations of masked genomic segments, shifting the learning signal from token recovery to semantic alignment. We evaluate JEPA-DNA on 17 diverse genomic benchmark tasks, demonstrating consistent gains in linear probing and zero-shot performance regardless of the underlying GFM architecture or generative objective. Our framework establishes a new state-of-the-art for GFMs, surpassing the best existing models by bridging generative precision with latent semantic grounding. Through extensive ablation studies, we further characterize the synergistic interplay between generative and latent objectives. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/NVIDIA-Digital-Bio/JEPA-DNA.
Table 1: Linear probing performance across diverse GFM backbones, objectives, aggregation strategies, and self-supervised datasets (DS). Bold values indicating the top performance within each backbone group.
Task
Len.
Best Baseline GFM
Best JEPA-DNA (Ours)
TF Binding
100
0.837
0.849
Promoter
300
0.907
0.937
Splice Site
400
0.713
0.733
Coding Pathogenicity
1024
0.668
0.675
Expression Effect
1024
0.674
0.689
Common vs. Rare
1024
0.589
0.510
Table 2: Linear probing comparison between the top-performing state-of-the-art GFMs and their corresponding JEPA-DNA augmented counterparts. Bold values indicate the overall state-of-the-art.
Task
DNABERT-2
JEPA-DNA (Ours)
Gain
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
% AUROC
BEND Expression Effect
0.543
0.084
0.574
0.091
+5.71%
BEND Disease Variant
0.680
0.141
0.762
0.262
+12.06%
TraitGym Complex
0.517
0.106
0.503
0.100
-2.71%
TraitGym Mendelian
0.515
0.103
0.540
0.110
+4.85%
Songlab ClinVar
0.540
0.566
0.527
0.557
-2.41%
Table 3: Zero-shot performance of JEPA-DNA using the DNABERT-2 backbone compared to the original DNABERT-2 baseline. Bold values denote superior zero-shot performance.
Configuration
Components
AUROC
Avg. Gain
MLM
JEPA
VICReg
Sched. Mask
Promoter
Splice
Express.
% AUROC
Baseline (DNABERT-2)
×
×
×
×
0.884
0.653
0.543
—
+MLM
✓
×
×
×
0.929
0.674
0.532
+2.06%
+MLM+JEPA
✓
✓
×
×
0.927
0.669
0.529
+1.58%
+MLM+JEPA+SM
✓
✓
×
✓
0.925
0.687
0.519
+1.81%
+MLM+JEPA+VR
✓
✓
✓
×
0.928
0.689
0.565
+4.79%
Table 4: Evaluation of incremental impact of continual training with key components of the JEPA-DNA paradigm. Promoter, Splice, and Express denote GUE Promoter, GUE Splice Site, and BEND Expression Effect tasks, respectively. Bold values indicate the optimal configuration.
Predictor
GUE Promoter
GUE Splice Site
BEND Expression
Avg. Gain
Architecture
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
% AUROC
Baseline
0.884
0.877
0.653
0.452
0.543
0.084
—
MLP
0.900
0.889
0.648
0.450
0.564
0.088
+1.64%
2 layers
0.928
0.911
0.691
0.485
0.561
0.087
+4.70%
4 layers (Ours)
0.928
0.913
0.705
0.500
0.574
0.091
+6.22%
6 layers
0.928
0.910
0.655
0.451
0.555
0.086
+2.50%
Table 5: Evaluation of predictor head’s architecture and depth. Bold values denote the best-performing configuration.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Task
DNABERT-2 (Baseline)
JEPA-DNA (Ours)
Gain
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
% AUROC
GUE
TF Binding
0.787 ± .001
0.773 ± .001
0.839 ± .001
0.828 ± .001
+6.61%
Promoter
0.885 ± .001
0.877 ± .001
0.928 ± .000
0.913 ± .000
+4.86%
Splice Site
0.653 ± .001
0.451 ± .002
0.704 ± .002
0.500 ± .003
+7.81%
VB
Appendix
Table 6: Impact of JEPA-DNA on Representation Stability and Performance. We compare the DNABERT-2 baseline against its JEPA-DNA enhanced counterpart using linear probing across five random seeds. We report the mean AUROC and AUPRC with standard deviations. JEPA-DNA consistently improves both performance and stability (lower variance) across the majority of tasks, with relative AUROC gains of up to 7.8%. Bold values indicate the superior mean performance.
Table 7: We evaluate the zero-shot capabilities of JEPA-DNA augmented models against their original baselines. Bold values denote superior zero-shot performance within each backbone group.
Task
DNABERT
DNABERT-2
NTv3 (8M)
NTv3 (100M)
EVO 2 (1B)
HyenaDNA
Caduceus
GUE TF Binding
0.812
0.788
0.792
0.837
0.630
0.698
0.651
GUE Promoter
0.836
0.884
0.904
0.907
0.815
0.686
0.693
GUE Splice Site
0.574
0.653
0.640
0.713
0.657
0.506
0.418
VB Coding Pathogenicity
0.613
0.624
0.595
0.668
0.659
0.515
0.586
VB Expression Effect
0.666
0.674
0.617
0.642
0.628
0.580
0.632
VB Common vs. Rare
0.589
0.505
0.466
0.502
0.525
0.503
0.501
Appendix
Table 8: Performance comparison of supervised tasks for genomic foundation models. Multiple backbone models are evaluated under a linear probing setup on diverse genomic prediction benchmarks to identify the current state of the art for each task under these settings.
Optimizer
Promoter
Splice Site
Expression
Avg. Gain
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
% AUROC
Baseline
0.884
0.877
0.653
0.452
0.543
0.084
—
Adam [ kingma2014adam ]
0.776
0.777
0.523
0.351
0.518
0.080
-12.24%
AdamW [ loshchilov2017decoupled ]
0.799
0.795
0.589
0.388
0.576
0.091
-4.45%
AdaBelief [ zhuang2020adabelief ]
0.901
0.894
0.662
0.454
0.545
0.086
+1.22%
SGDM [ bottou2010large ]
0.928
0.913
0.705
0.500
0.574
0.091
+6.22%
Appendix
Table 9: Optimizer Sensitivity in JEPA-DNA Continual Pre-training. We evaluate the impact of different optimization algorithms on the stability and performance of JEPA-DNA using DNABERT-2 as the backbone. Bold values indicate peak performance.
Paradigm
Token
Global
Sched.
Promoter
Splice Site
Expression
Avg. Gain
Type
JEPA
Mask
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
% AUROC
MLM Only
MLM
MLM
×
×
0.929
0.914
0.674
0.467
0.532
0.084
+2.06%
MLM
MLM
×
✓
0.927
0.911
0.669
0.463
0.530
0.084
+1.67%
JEPA Only
JEPA
JEPA
✓
✓
0.919
0.906
0.680
0.474
0.562
0.089
+3.86%
Appendix
Table 10: Comparative analysis of training paradigms. All JEPA variants include the VICReg loss. When the token type is JEPA, the JEPA objective is applied to the representations of individual masked tokens, analogous to the I-JEPA formulation. Bold values indicate the optimal configuration.
Learning Paradigm
Promoter
Splice Site
Expression
Avg. Gain
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRC
% AUROC
DNASimCLR [ yang2024dnasimclr ]
0.922
0.912
0.600
0.407
0.549
0.085
—
JEPA-DNA (Ours)
0.928
0.913
0.705
0.500
0.574
0.091
+7.57%
Appendix
Table 11: DNASimCLR vs. JEPA-DNA across genomic tasks.
Figure 2: JEPA-DNA Embedding visualization colored by Ensembl annotations.
Figure 3: The JEPA-DNA architecture using a CLS-based representation, as implemented with DNABERT-2.
Contemporary Genomic Foundation Models (GFMs) rely on a DNA-as-a-string paradigm that employs masked token prediction objectives for pretraining. However, this abstraction does not explicitly model the biochemical, structural, and physical properties essential to biological function. Many molecular properties can be estimated from sequence using established biophysical models, so their utility lies not in providing an independent modality, but in introducing priors that training objectives can explicitly exploit. We introduce VANDAM, a framework that extends the training of GFMs with DNA molecular priors. In self-supervised training, VANDAM predicts regional molecular properties from pooled representations. When functional labels are available and can reward retaining molecular priors, local features are additionally injected at the input. VANDAM consistently improves downstream performance across four architecture families and nine held-out genomic tasks by complementing token-based objectives. Probing experiments further demonstrate that the use of molecular priors generalizes to other unseen molecular properties.
Jeremy Levy, Ariel Larey, Yury Nahshan +18
Applied AI Architecture, NVIDIA, Israel. · Worldwide Field Ops, NVIDIA, Israel. · Developer Programs, NVIDIA, Israel. +3
Genomic foundation models increasingly adopt large language model architectures, yet almost universally rely on fixed tokenization schemes such as k-mers, BPE, or single nucleotides, which impose arbitrary sequence boundaries that may obscure biologically relevant structure. We present LDARNet, a 120M-parameter hierarchical genomic foundation model that adapts H-Net-style dynamic chunking from autoregressive generation to masked language modeling, combining BiMamba-2 state-space layers with local attention, bidirectional routing, and a ratio-based regularizer to induce adaptive token boundaries without supervision. Fine-tuned on 27 tasks from the Nucleotide Transformer and Genomic Benchmarks suites, LDARNet achieves 11/18 wins among compact models (<300M parameters) and state-of-the-art results on 5 histone modification tasks, outperforming models up to 20× larger. A FLOPs-matched controlled experiment isolates learned routing as the source of these gains: learned boundaries beat fixed-grid boundaries by up to 14 percentage points on histone tasks at identical compute. Nucleotide-resolution analysis further shows that the learned boundaries align with canonical promoter motifs and splice junctions without supervision, providing a biological interpretation for adaptive tokenization in genomic foundation models.
Daria Ledneva, Denis Kuznetsov
Moscow Independent Research Institute of Artificial Intelligence, Moscow, Russia.
Foundation models in genomics have shown mixed success compared to their counterparts in natural language processing. Yet, the reasons for their limited effectiveness remain poorly understood. In this work, we investigate the role of entropy as a fundamental factor limiting the capacities of such models to learn from their training data and develop foundational capabilities. We train ensembles of models on text and DNA sequences and analyze their predictions, static embeddings, and empirical Fisher information flow. We show that the high entropy of genomic sequences -- from the point of view of unseen token prediction -- leads to near-uniform output distributions, disagreement across models, and unstable static embeddings, even for models that are matched in architecture, training and data. We then demonstrate that models trained on DNA concentrate Fisher information in embedding layers, seemingly failing to exploit inter-token relationships. Our results suggest that self-supervised training from sequences alone may not be applicable to genomic data, calling into question the assumptions underlying current methodologies for training genomic foundation models.
Maxime Rochkoulets, Lovro Vrček, Mile Šikić
Genome Institute of Singapore, A*STAR, Singapore · KU Leuven, Belgium · Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, University of Zagreb, Croatia