RAPTOR: OPTIMAL PROTEIN THREADING BY LINEAR PROGRAMMING
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 presents a novel linear programming approach to do protein 3-dimensional (3D) structure prediction via threading. Based on the contact map graph of the protein 3D structure template, the protein threading problem is formulated as a large scale integer programming (IP) problem. The IP formulation is then relaxed to a linear programming (LP) problem, and then solved by the canonical branch-and-bound method. The final solution is globally optimal with respect to energy functions. In particular, our energy function includes pairwise interaction preferences and allowing variable gaps which are two key factors in making the protein threading problem NP-hard. A surprising result is that, most of the time, the relaxed linear programs generate integral solutions directly. Our algorithm has been implemented as a software package RAPTOR-RApid Protein Threading by Operation Research technique. Large scale benchmark test for fold recognition shows that RAPTOR significantly outperforms other programs at the fold similarity level. The CAFASP3 evaluation, a blind and public test by the protein structure prediction community, ranks RAPTOR as top 1, among individual prediction servers, in terms of the recognition capability and alignment accuracy for Fold Recognition (FR) family targets. RAPTOR also performs very well in recognizing the hard Homology Modeling (HM) targets. RAPTOR was implemented at the University of Waterloo and it can be accessed at http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~j3xu/RAPTOR_form.htm.
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