A study of different annealing schedules in SARNA-predict
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a study of the effect of different types of annealing schedules for a ribonucleic acid (RNA) secondary structure prediction algorithm based on simulated annealing (SA). Design/methodology/approach – An RNA folding algorithm was implemented that assembles the final structure from potential substructures (helixes). Structures are encoded as a permutation of helixes. An SA searches this space of permutations. Parameters and annealing schedules were studied and fine-tuned to optimize algorithm performance. Findings – In comparing with mfold, the SA algorithm shows comparable results (in terms of F -measure) even with a less sophisticated thermodynamic model. In terms of average specificity, the SA algorithm has provided surpassing results. Research limitations/implications – Most of the underlying thermodynamic models are too simplistic and incomplete to accurately model the free energy for larger structures. This is the largest limitation of free energy-based RNA folding algorithms in general. Practical implications – The algorithm offers a different approach that can be used in practice to fold RNA sequences quickly. Originality/value – The algorithm is one of only two SA-based RNA folding algorithms. The authors use a very different encoding, based on permutation of candidate helixes. The in depth study of annealing schedules and other parameters makes the algorithm a strong contender. Another benefit is that new thermodynamic models can be incorporated with relative ease (which is not the case for algorithms based on dynamic programming).
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it