Theory of local k-mer selection with applications to long-read alignment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Motivation Selecting a subset of k-mers in a string in a local manner is a common task in bioinformatics tools for speeding up computation. Arguably the most well-known and common method is the minimizer technique, which selects the ‘lowest-ordered’ k-mer in a sliding window. Recently, it has been shown that minimizers are a sub-optimal method for selecting subsets of k-mers when mutations are present. There is however a lack of understanding behind the theory of why certain methods perform well. Results We first theoretically investigate the conservation metric for k-mer selection methods. We derive an exact expression for calculating the conservation of a k-mer selection method. This turns out to be tractable enough for us to prove closed-form expressions for a variety of methods, including (open and closed) syncmers, ( α, b, n )-words, and an upper bound for minimizers. As a demonstration of our results, we modified the minimap2 read aligner to use a more optimal k-mer selection method and demonstrate that there is up to an 8.2% relative increase in number of mapped reads. Availability and supplementary information Simulations and supplementary methods available at https://github.com/bluenote-1577/local-kmer-selection-results . os-minimap2 is a modified version of minimap2 and available at https://github.com/bluenote-1577/os-minimap2 . Contact jshaw@math.toronto.edu
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 | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".