Algorithms and Complexity Results for Genome Mapping Problems
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
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.
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