HotKnots: Heuristic prediction of RNA secondary structures including pseudoknots
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
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.
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