Automatic recognition of complementary strands: lessons regarding machine learning abilities in RNA folding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Prediction of RNA secondary structure from single sequences still needs substantial improvements. The application of machine learning (ML) to this problem has become increasingly popular. However, ML algorithms are prone to overfitting, limiting the ability to learn more about the inherent mechanisms governing RNA folding. It is natural to use high-capacity models when solving such a difficult task, but poor generalization is expected when too few examples are available. Methods: Here, we report the relation between capacity and performance on a fundamental related problem: determining whether two sequences are fully complementary. Our analysis focused on the impact of model architecture and capacity as well as dataset size and nature on classification accuracy. Results: We observed that low-capacity models are better suited for learning with mislabelled training examples, while large capacities improve the ability to generalize to structurally dissimilar data. It turns out that neural networks struggle to grasp the fundamental concept of base complementarity, especially in lengthwise extrapolation context. Discussion: Given a more complex task like RNA folding, it comes as no surprise that the scarcity of useable examples hurdles the applicability of machine learning techniques to this field.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".