MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3142663085 · doi:10.14778/3447689.3447695

On the string matching with <i>k</i> differences in DNA databases

2021· article· en· W3142663085 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the VLDB Endowment · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubstringSuffix treeString (physics)String searching algorithmCombinatoricsPattern matchingTrieBounded functionSpeedupSequence (biology)Tree (set theory)Computer scienceAlphabetMatching (statistics)Time complexityMathematicsAlgorithmData structureArtificial intelligenceParallel computingBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we discuss an efficient and effective index mechanism for the string matching with k differences, by which we will find all the substrings of a target string y of length n that align with a pattern string x of length m with not more than k insertions, deletions, and mismatches. A typical application is the searching of a DNA database, where the size of a genome sequence in the database is much larger than that of a pattern. For example, n is often on the order of millions or billions while m is just a hundred or a thousand. The main idea of our method is to transform y to a BWT-array as an index, denoted as BWT ( y ), and search x against it. The time complexity of our method is bounded by O( k · | T |), where T is a tree structure dynamically generated during a search of BWT ( y ). The average value of | T | is bounded by O(|Σ| 2 k ), where Σ is an alphabet from which we take symbols to make up target and pattern strings. This time complexity is better than previous strategies when k ≤ O(log |Σ| n ). The general working process consists of two steps. In the first step, x is decomposed into a series of l small subpatterns, and BWT ( y ) is utilized to speedup the process to figure out all the occurrences of such subpatterns with ⌊ k/l ⌋ differences. In the second step, all the found occurrences in the first step will be rechecked to see whether they really match x , but with k differences. Extensive experiments have been conducted, which show that our method for this problem is promising.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.196 · 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