Bibliographic record
Abstract
A wide range of applications, including bioinformatics, time series, and log analysis, depend on the identification of repetitions in very long sequences. The problem of finding maximal pairs subsumes most important types of repetition-finding tasks. Existing solutions require both the input sequence and its index (typically an order of magnitude larger than the input) to fit in memory. Moreover, they are serial algorithms with long execution time. Therefore, they are limited to small datasets, despite the fact that modern applications demand orders of magnitude longer sequences. In this paper we present RACE, a parallel system for finding maximal pairs in very long sequences. RACE supports parallel execution on stand-alone multicore systems, in addition to scaling to thousands of nodes on clusters or supercomputers. RACE does not require the input or the index to fit in memory; therefore, it supports very long sequences with limited memory. Moreover, it uses a novel array representation that allows for cache-efficient implementation. RACE is particularly suitable for the cloud (e.g., Amazon EC2) because, based on availability, it can scale elastically to more or fewer machines during its execution. Since scaling out introduces overheads, mainly due to load imbalance, we propose a cost model to estimate the expected speedup, based on statistics gathered through sampling. The model allows the user to select the appropriate combination of cloud resources based on the provider's prices and the required deadline. We conducted extensive experimental evaluation with large real datasets and large computing infrastructures. In contrast to existing methods, RACE can handle the entire human genome on a typical desktop computer with 16GB RAM. Moreover, for a problem that takes 10 hours of serial execution, RACE finishes in 28 seconds using 2,048 nodes on an IBM BlueGene/P supercomputer.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.118 | 0.111 |
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".