IDENTIFYING UNIFORMLY MUTATED SEGMENTS WITHIN REPEATS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given a long string of characters from a constant size alphabet we present an algorithm to determine whether its characters have been generated by a single i.i.d. random source. More specifically, consider all possible n-coin models for generating a binary string S, where each bit of S is generated via an independent toss of one of the n coins in the model. The choice of which coin to toss is decided by a random walk on the set of coins where the probability of a coin change is much lower than the probability of using the same coin repeatedly. We present a procedure to evaluate the likelihood of a n-coin model for given S, subject a uniform prior distribution over the parameters of the model (that represent mutation rates and probabilities of copying events). In the absence of detailed prior knowledge of these parameters, the algorithm can be used to determine whether the a posteriori probability for n=1 is higher than for any other n>1. Our algorithm runs in time O(l4logl), where l is the length of S, through a dynamic programming approach which exploits the assumed convexity of the a posteriori probability for n. Our test can be used in the analysis of long alignments between pairs of genomic sequences in a number of ways. For example, functional regions in genome sequences exhibit much lower mutation rates than non-functional regions. Because our test provides means for determining variations in the mutation rate, it may be used to distinguish functional regions from non-functional ones. Another application is in determining whether two highly similar, thus evolutionarily related, genome segments are the result of a single copy event or of a complex series of copy events. This is particularly an issue in evolutionary studies of genome regions rich with repeat segments (especially tandemly repeated segments).
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".