FEAST: Sensitive Local Alignment with Multiple Rates of Evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".