Local DNA sequence alignment in a cluster of workstations: Algorithms and tools
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Distributed Shared Memory systems allow the use of the shared memory programming paradigm in distributed architectures where no physically shared memory exist. Scope consistent software DSMs provide a relaxed memory model that reduces the coherence overhead by ensuring consistency only at synchronization operations, on a per-lock basis. Much of the work in DSM systems is validated by benchmarks and there are only a few examples of real parallel applications running on DSM systems. Sequence comparison is a basic operation in DNA sequencing projects, and most of sequence comparison methods used are based on heuristics, that are faster but do not produce optimal alignments. Recently, many organisms had their DNA entirely sequenced, and this reality presents the need for comparing long DNA sequences, which is a challenging task due to its high demands for computational power and memory. In this article, we present and evaluate a parallelization strategy for implementing a sequence alignment algorithm for long sequences. This strategy was implemented in JIAJIA, a scope consistent software DSM system. Our results on an eight-machine cluster presented good speedups, showing that our parallelization strategy and programming support were appropriate.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it