On minimizers and convolutional filters: a partial justification for the unreasonable effectiveness of CNNs in categorical sequence analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Minimizers and convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are two quite distinct popular techniques that have both been employed to analyze biological sequences. At face value, the methods seem entirely dissimilar. Minimizers use min-wise hashing on a rolling window to extract a single important k-mer feature per window. CNNs start with a wide array of randomly initialized convolutional filters, paired with a pooling operation, and then multiple additional neural layers to learn both the filters themselves and how those filters can be used to classify the sequence. In this manuscript, I demonstrate through a careful mathematical analysis of hash function properties that there are deep theoretical connections between minimizers and convolutional filters -- in short, for sequences over a categorical alphabet, random Gaussian initialization of convolutional filters with max-pooling is equivalent to choosing minimizers from a random hash function biased towards more distinct k-mers. This provides a partial explanation for the unreasonable effectiveness of CNNs in categorical sequence analysis.
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 | 0.010 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".