↓ Skip to main content

Pareto optimization in algebraic dynamic programming

Overview of attention for article published in Algorithms for Molecular Biology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pareto optimization in algebraic dynamic programming
Published in
Algorithms for Molecular Biology, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13015-015-0051-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cédric Saule, Robert Giegerich

Abstract

Pareto optimization combines independent objectives by computing the Pareto front of its search space, defined as the set of all solutions for which no other candidate solution scores better under all objectives. This gives, in a precise sense, better information than an artificial amalgamation of different scores into a single objective, but is more costly to compute. Pareto optimization naturally occurs with genetic algorithms, albeit in a heuristic fashion. Non-heuristic Pareto optimization so far has been used only with a few applications in bioinformatics. We study exact Pareto optimization for two objectives in a dynamic programming framework. We define a binary Pareto product operator [Formula: see text] on arbitrary scoring schemes. Independent of a particular algorithm, we prove that for two scoring schemes A and B used in dynamic programming, the scoring scheme [Formula: see text] correctly performs Pareto optimization over the same search space. We study different implementations of the Pareto operator with respect to their asymptotic and empirical efficiency. Without artificial amalgamation of objectives, and with no heuristics involved, Pareto optimization is faster than computing the same number of answers separately for each objective. For RNA structure prediction under the minimum free energy versus the maximum expected accuracy model, we show that the empirical size of the Pareto front remains within reasonable bounds. Pareto optimization lends itself to the comparative investigation of the behavior of two alternative scoring schemes for the same purpose. For the above scoring schemes, we observe that the Pareto front can be seen as a composition of a few macrostates, each consisting of several microstates that differ in the same limited way. We also study the relationship between abstract shape analysis and the Pareto front, and find that they extract information of a different nature from the folding space and can be meaningfully combined.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 14%
Student > Master 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 4 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 8 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 14%
Unspecified 1 5%
Mathematics 1 5%
Chemical Engineering 1 5%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 4 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,819,430
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from Algorithms for Molecular Biology
#127
of 264 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,320
of 262,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Algorithms for Molecular Biology
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 264 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,263 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.