MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952646324 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btx603

Segway 2.0: Gaussian mixture models and minibatch training

2017· article· en· W2952646324 on OpenAlexafffund
Rachel C.W. Chan, Maxwell W. Libbrecht, Eric G. Roberts, Jeffrey A. Bilmes, William Stafford Noble, Michael M. Hoffman

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Human Genome Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity Health Network
KeywordsComputer scienceScripting languageAnnotationSource codeGaussianMixture modelTraining setData miningCode (set theory)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)Set (abstract data type)Programming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary: Segway performs semi-automated genome annotation, discovering joint patterns across multiple genomic signal datasets. We discuss a major new version of Segway and highlight its ability to model data with substantially greater accuracy. Major enhancements in Segway 2.0 include the ability to model data with a mixture of Gaussians, enabling capture of arbitrarily complex signal distributions, and minibatch training, leading to better learned parameters. Availability and implementation: Segway and its source code are freely available for download at http://segway.hoffmanlab.org. We have made available scripts (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.802939) and datasets (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.802906) for this paper's analysis. Contact: michael.hoffman@utoronto.ca. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.680

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksFrench-language works237,207