CONSENSUS CONTACT PREDICTION BY LINEAR PROGRAMMING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein inter-residue contacts are of great use for protein structure determination or prediction. Recent CASP events have shown that a few accurately predicted contacts can help improve both computational efficiency and prediction accuracy of the ab inito folding methods. This paper develops an integer linear programming (ILP) method for consensus-based contact prediction. In contrast to the simple "majority voting" method assuming that all the individual servers are equal and independent, our method evaluates their correlations using the maximum likelihood method and constructs some latent independent servers using the principal component analysis technique. Then, we use an integer linear programming model to assign weights to these latent servers in order to maximize the deviation between the correct contacts and incorrect ones; our consensus prediction server is the weighted combination of these latent servers. In addition to the consensus information, our method also uses server-independent correlated mutation (CM) as one of the prediction features. Experimental results demonstrate that our contact prediction server performs better than the "majority voting" method. The accuracy of our method for the top L/5 contacts on CASP7 targets is 73.41%, which is much higher than previously reported studies. On the 16 free modeling (FM) targets, our method achieves an accuracy of 37.21%.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".