Constrained Dynamic Programming and Supervised Penalty Learning Algorithms for Peak Detection in Genomic Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peak detection in genomic data involves segmenting counts of DNA sequence reads aligned to different locations of a chromosome. The goal is to detect peaks with higher counts, and filter out background noise with lower counts. Most existing algorithms for this problem are unsupervised heuristics tailored to patterns in specific data types. We propose a supervised framework for this problem, using optimal changepoint detection models with learned penalty functions. We propose the first dynamic programming algorithm that is guaranteed to compute the optimal solution to changepoint detection problems with constraints between adjacent segment mean parameters. Implementing this algorithm requires the choice of penalty parameter that determines the number of segments that are estimated. We show how the supervised learning ideas of Rigaill et al. (2013) can be used to choose this penalty. We compare the resulting implementation of our algorithm to several baselines in a benchmark of labeled ChIP-seq data sets with two different patterns (broad H3K36me3 data and sharp H3K4me3 data). Whereas baseline unsupervised methods only provide accurate peak detection for a single pattern, our supervised method achieves state-of-the-art accuracy in all data sets. The log-linear timings of our proposed dynamic programming algorithm make it scalable to the large genomic data sets that are now common. Our implementation is available in the PeakSegOptimal R package on CRAN.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".