HotKnots: Heuristic prediction of RNA secondary structures including pseudoknots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present HotKnots, a new heuristic algorithm for the prediction of RNA secondary structures including pseudoknots. Based on the simple idea of iteratively forming stable stems, our algorithm explores many alternative secondary structures, using a free energy minimization algorithm for pseudoknot free secondary structures to identify promising candidate stems. In an empirical evaluation of the algorithm with 43 sequences taken from the Pseudobase database and from the literature on pseudoknotted structures, we found that overall, in terms of the sensitivity and specificity of predictions, HotKnots outperforms the well-known Pseudoknots algorithm of Rivas and Eddy and the NUPACK algorithm of Dirks and Pierce, both based on dynamic programming approaches for limited classes of pseudoknotted structures. It also outperforms the heuristic Iterated Loop Matching algorithm of Ruan and colleagues, and in many cases gives better results than the genetic algorithm from the STAR package of van Batenburg and colleagues and the recent pknotsRG-mfe algorithm of Reeder and Giegerich. The HotKnots algorithm has been implemented in C/C++ and is available from http://www.cs.ubc.ca/labs/beta/Software/HotKnots.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".