An algorithm to reconstruct a target DNA sequence from its spectrum connected at a given level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to sequence a target DNA, it is first cleaved into many shorter overlapping fragments by chemical or physical techniques. The nucleotide sequence of each fragment is then determined (read) by established methods. The set of all read fragments which cover the target DNA sequence is called its spectrum. It is believed that the shortest superstring of a spectrum is the best candidate for the target DNA sequence. The general problem of finding the shortest superstring for any given set of strings s is NP-hard. Fortunately, the biological instance of this problem is easier. It is not likely that two read fragments, each consisting of several hundred letters, which come from consecutive locations on the target DNA sequence have an overlap of only a few letters; typically, the overlap will be longer. Thus one may reasonably assume that two strings in the spectrum have significant overlap (connectivity) if they come from consecutive locations on the target DNA sequence. A class of important instances satisfying this assumption are those whose spectra are from DNA microarrays. This assumption allows us to claim and show the following: if the spectrum S of a target DNA sequence is substring-free and connected at level t, and the target DNA sequence has no repeats of size t or larger, then there exists an algorithm to reconstruct the target DNA sequence in the linear time O(|S|) after an overlap graph of the spectrum is built.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".