Bioinformatics algorithm based on a parallel implementation of a machine learning approach using transducers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Finite automata, in which each transition is augmented with an output label in addition to the familiar input label, are considered finite-state transducers. Transducers have been used to analyze some fundamental issues in bioinformatics. Weighted finite-state transducers have been proposed to pairwise alignments of DNA and protein sequences; as well as to develop kernels for computational biology. Machine learning algorithms for conditional transducers have been implemented and used for DNA sequence analysis. Transducer learning algorithms are based on conditional probability computation. It is calculated by using techniques, such as pair-database creation, normalization (with Maximum-Likelihood normalization) and parameters optimization (with Expectation-Maximization - EM). These techniques are intrinsically costly for computation, even worse when are applied to bioinformatics, because the databases sizes are large. In this work, we describe a parallel implementation of an algorithm to learn conditional transducers using these techniques. The algorithm is oriented to bioinformatics applications, such as alignments, phylogenetic trees, and other genome evolution studies. Indeed, several experiences were developed using the parallel and sequential algorithm on Westgrid (specifically, on the Breeze cluster). As results, we obtain that our parallel algorithm is scalable, because execution times are reduced considerably when the data size parameter is increased. Another experience is developed by changing precision parameter. In this case, we obtain smaller execution times using the parallel algorithm. Finally, number of threads used to execute the parallel algorithm on the Breezy cluster is changed. In this last experience, we obtain as result that speedup is considerably increased when more threads are used; however there is a convergence for number of threads equal to or greater than 16.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".