Identification of Enriched Regions in ChIP-Seq Data via a Linear-Time Multi-Level Thresholding Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP-Seq) has emerged as a superior alternative to microarray technology as it provides higher resolution, less noise, greater coverage and wider dynamic range. While ChIP-Seq enables probing of DNA-protein interaction over the entire genome, it requires the use of sophisticated tools to recognize hidden patterns and extract meaningful data. Over the years, various attempts have resulted in several algorithms making use of different heuristics to accurately determine individual peaks corresponding to unique DNA-protein. However, finding all the significant peaks with high accuracy in a reasonable time is still a challenge. In this work, we propose the use of Multi-level thresholding algorithm, which we call LinMLTBS, used to identify the enriched regions on ChIP-Seq data. Although various suboptimal heuristics have been proposed for multi-level thresholding, we emphasize on the use of an algorithm capable of obtaining an optimal solution, while maintaining linear-time complexity. Testing various algorithm on various ENCODE project datasets shows that our approach attains higher accuracy relative to previously proposed peak finders while retaining a reasonable processing speed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".