MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167436707 · doi:10.1109/tcbb.2010.76

FEAST: Sensitive Local Alignment with Multiple Rates of Evolution

2010· article· en· W2167436707 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander K. Hudek, Daniel G. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtension (predicate logic)Sensitivity (control systems)Pairwise comparisonSet (abstract data type)Probabilistic logicViterbi algorithmAlgorithmComputer scienceContrast (vision)Statistical modelMathematicsArtificial intelligenceDecoding methods

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a pairwise local aligner, FEAST, which uses two new techniques: a sensitive extension algorithm for identifying homologous subsequences, and a descriptive probabilistic alignment model. We also present a new procedure for training alignment parameters and apply it to the human and mouse genomes, producing a better parameter set for these sequences. Our extension algorithm identifies homologous subsequences by considering all evolutionary histories. It has higher maximum sensitivity than Viterbi extensions, and better balances specificity. We model alignments with several submodels, each with unique statistical properties, describing strongly similar and weakly similar regions of homologous DNA. Training parameters using two submodels produces superior alignments, even when we align with only the parameters from the weaker submodel. Our extension algorithm combined with our new parameter set achieves sensitivity 0.59 on synthetic tests. In contrast, LASTZ with default settings achieves sensitivity 0.35 with the same false positive rate. Using the weak submodel as parameters for LASTZ increases its sensitivity to 0.59 with high error. FEAST is available at http://monod.uwaterloo.ca/feast/.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.424
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and BioinformaticsSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207