Computational approaches for RNA energy parameter estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methods for efficient and accurate prediction of RNA structure are increasingly valuable, given the current rapid advances in understanding the diverse functions of RNA molecules in the cell. To enhance the accuracy of secondary structure predictions, we developed and refined optimization techniques for the estimation of energy parameters. We build on two previous approaches to RNA free-energy parameter estimation: (1) the Constraint Generation (CG) method, which iteratively generates constraints that enforce known structures to have energies lower than other structures for the same molecule; and (2) the Boltzmann Likelihood (BL) method, which infers a set of RNA free-energy parameters that maximize the conditional likelihood of a set of reference RNA structures. Here, we extend these approaches in two main ways: We propose (1) a max-margin extension of CG, and (2) a novel linear Gaussian Bayesian network that models feature relationships, which effectively makes use of sparse data by sharing statistical strength between parameters. We obtain significant improvements in the accuracy of RNA minimum free-energy pseudoknot-free secondary structure prediction when measured on a comprehensive set of 2518 RNA molecules with reference structures. Our parameters can be used in conjunction with software that predicts RNA secondary structures, RNA hybridization, or ensembles of structures. Our data, software, results, and parameter sets in various formats are freely available at http://www.cs.ubc.ca/labs/beta/Projects/RNA-Params.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".