Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seeding heuristics are the most widely used strategies to speed up sequence alignment in bioinformatics. Such strategies are most successful if they are calibrated, so that the speed-versus-accuracy trade-off can be properly tuned. In the widely used case of read mapping, it has been so far impossible to predict the success rate of competing seeding strategies for lack of a theoretical framework. Here, we present an approach to estimate such quantities based on the theory of analytic combinatorics. The strategy is to specify a combinatorial construction of reads where the seeding heuristic fails, translate this specification into a generating function using formal rules, and finally extract the probabilities of interest from the singularities of the generating function. The generating function can also be used to set up a simple recurrence to compute the probabilities with greater precision. We use this approach to construct simple estimators of the success rate of the seeding heuristic under different types of sequencing errors, and we show that the estimates are accurate in practical situations. More generally, this work shows novel strategies based on analytic combinatorics to compute probabilities of interest in bioinformatics.
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 | 0.010 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".