Hybrid Ising Machine and Reinforcement Learning Approach to Folding Lattice Proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hydrophobic polarity (HP) protein folding model is a simplified computation model utilized to study the folding of proteins into their three-dimensional structures. Understanding how proteins fold and misfold is fundamental to designing effective, safe drugs, allowing for targeted therapies and better patient outcomes. The amino acids of a protein can be categorized as either hydrophobic or polar, where the hydrophobic beads tend to cluster together in a properly folded protein to minimize exposure to the surrounding environment. Determining the lowest energy configurations of the HP model is a non-deterministic polynomial (NP) hard problem. One method is formulating the HP model as a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) problem which can be mapped to an Ising machine. In the Ising model, the lowest energy state of the system represents the correct lattice configuration of the folded protein. The Ising machine technique utilized of simulated annealing allows for future application of the work on an integrated silicon photonic chip. Alternatively, reinforcement learning designed with an energy-based reward function can optimize the HP model by adapting to the environment without the consequence of remaining in local minima like that of the Ising machine. A hybrid pipeline combining the Ising machine and reinforcement learning sequentially was designed to determine the two-dimensional lattice configurations of various protein chain lengths and sequences, combining the parallel optimization of the Ising machine on an integrated photonic platform and the adaptability of the reinforcement learning algorithm. Results found that this hybrid model improved the accuracy and ability of determining the lowest energy state in contrast to the Ising machine alone as well as improved the efficiency by reducing the number of iterations required when compared solely to reinforcement learning. Future work focuses on implementing a parallel pipeline approach as well as adapting to a three-dimensional model.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".