Algorithms and Complexity Results for Genome Mapping Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome mapping algorithms aim at computing an ordering of a set of genomic markers based on local ordering information such as adjacencies and intervals of markers. In most genome mapping models, markers are assumed to occur uniquely in the resulting map. We introduce algorithmic questions that consider repeats, i.e., markers that can have several occurrences in the resulting map. We show that, provided with an upper bound on the copy number of repeated markers and with intervals that span full repeat copies, called repeat spanning intervals, the problem of deciding if a set of adjacencies and repeat spanning intervals admits a genome representation is tractable if the target genome can contain linear and/or circular chromosomal fragments. We also show that extracting a maximum cardinality or weight subset of repeat spanning intervals given a set of adjacencies that admits a genome realization is NP-hard but fixed-parameter tractable in the maximum copy number and the number of adjacent repeats, and tractable if intervals contain a single repeated marker.
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 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".