MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1484399819 · doi:10.1089/cmb.2005.12.129

More Reliable Protein NMR Peak Assignment via Improved 2-Interval Scheduling

2005· article· en· W1484399819 on OpenAlexaff
Zhi‐Zhong Chen, Guohui Lin, Roméo Rizzi, Jianjun Wen, Dong Xu, Ying Xu, Tao Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Biology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScheduling (production processes)SubsequenceJob shop schedulingComputer scienceInterval (graph theory)CombinatoricsMathematical optimizationAlgorithmMathematicsSchedule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Protein NMR peak assignment refers to the process of assigning a group of "spin systems" obtained experimentally to a protein sequence of amino acids. The automation of this process is still an unsolved and challenging problem in NMR protein structure determination. Recently, protein NMR peak assignment has been formulated as an interval scheduling problem (ISP), where a protein sequence P of amino acids is viewed as a discrete time interval I (the amino acids on P one-to-one correspond to the time units of I), each subset S of spin systems that are known to originate from consecutive amino acids from P is viewed as a "job" j(s), the preference of assigning S to a subsequence P of consecutive amino acids on P is viewed as the profit of executing job j(s) in the subinterval of I corresponding to P, and the goal is to maximize the total profit of executing the jobs (on a single machine) during I. The interval scheduling problem is max SNP-hard in general; but in the real practice of protein NMR peak assignment, each job j(s) usually requires at most 10 consecutive time units, and typically the jobs that require one or two consecutive time units are the most difficult to assign/schedule. In order to solve these most difficult assignments, we present an efficient 13/7-approximation algorithm for the special case of the interval scheduling problem where each job takes one or two consecutive time units. Combining this algorithm with a greedy filtering strategy for handling long jobs (i.e., jobs that need more than two consecutive time units), we obtain a new efficient heuristic for protein NMR peak assignment. Our experimental study shows that the new heuristic produces the best peak assignment in most of the cases, compared with the NMR peak assignment algorithms in the recent literature. The above algorithm is also the first approximation algorithm for a nontrivial case of the well-known interval scheduling problem that breaks the ratio 2 barrier.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational BiologySame topicAlgorithms and Data CompressionFrench-language works237,207