A Parameterized Algorithm for Protein Structure Alignment
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
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.
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