VOTING ALGORITHMS FOR THE MOTIF FINDING PROBLEM
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
UNLABELLED: Finding motifs in many sequences is an important problem in computational biology, especially in identification of regulatory motifs in DNA sequences. Let c be a motif sequence. Given a set of sequences, each is planted with a mutated version of c at an unknown position, the motif finding problem is to find these planted motifs and the original c. In this paper, we study the VM model of the planted motif problem, which is proposed by Pevzner and Sze. We give a simple Selecting One Voting algorithm and a more powerful Selecting k Voting algorithm. When the length of motif and the number of input sequences are large enough, we prove that the two algorithms can find the unknown motif consensus with high probability. In the proof, we show why a large number of input sequences is so important for finding motifs, which is believed by most researchers. Experimental results on simulated data also support the claim. Selecting k Voting algorithm is powerful, but computational intensive. To speed up the algorithm, we propose a progressive filtering algorithm, which improves the running time significantly and has good accuracy in finding motifs. Our experimental results show that Selecting k Voting algorithm with progressive filtering performs very well in practice and it outperforms some best known algorithms. AVAILABILITY: The software is available upon request.
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