Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a parameterized polynomial time approximation scheme (PTAS) for aligning two protein structures, in the case where one protein structure is represented by a contact map graph and the other by a contact map graph or a distance matrix. If the sequential order of alignment is not required, the time complexity is polynomial in the protein size and exponential with respect to two parameters D(u)/D(l) and D(c)/D(l), which usually can be treated as constants. In particular, D(u) is the distance threshold determining if two residues are in contact or not, D(c) is the maximally allowed distance between two matched residues after two proteins are superimposed, and D(l) is the minimum inter-residue distance in a typical protein. This result clearly demonstrates that the computational hardness of the contact map based protein structure alignment problem is related not to protein size but to several parameters modeling the problem. The result is achieved by decomposing the protein structure using tree decomposition and discretizing the rigid-body transformation space. Preliminary experimental results indicate that on a Linux PC, it takes from ten minutes to one hour to align two proteins with approximately 100 residues.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".