Locality and Gaps in RNA Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Locality is an important and well-studied notion in comparative analysis of biological sequences. Similarly, taking into account affine gap penalties when calculating biological sequence alignments is a well-accepted technique for obtaining better alignments. When dealing with RNA, one has to take into consideration not only sequential features, but also structural features of the inspected molecule. This makes the computation more challenging, and usually prohibits the comparison only to small RNAs. In this paper we introduce two local metrics for comparing RNAs that extend the Smith-Waterman metric and its normalized version used for string comparison. We also present a global RNA alignment algorithm which handles affine gap penalties. Our global algorithm runs in O ( m 2 n (1 + lg n / m )) time, while our local algorithms run in O ( m 2 n (1 + lg n / m )) and O ( n 2 m ) time, respectively, where m ≤ n are the lengths of the two given RNAs. These time complexities are comparable to the time complexity of any known RNA alignment algorithm. Furthermore, both our global and local algorithms are robust to selections of arbitrary scoring schemes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".