How to optimally sample a sequence for rapid analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: We face an increasing flood of genetic sequence data, from diverse sources, requiring rapid computational analysis. Rapid analysis can be achieved by sampling a subset of positions in each sequence. Previous sequence-sampling methods, such as minimizers, syncmers and minimally overlapping words, were developed by heuristic intuition, and are not optimal. RESULTS: We present a sequence-sampling approach that provably optimizes sensitivity for a whole class of sequence comparison methods, for randomly evolving sequences. It is likely near-optimal for a wide range of alignment-based and alignment-free analyses. For real biological DNA, it increases specificity by avoiding simple repeats. Our approach generalizes universal hitting sets (which guarantee to sample a sequence at least once) and polar sets (which guarantee to sample a sequence at most once). This helps us understand how to do rapid sequence analysis as accurately as possible. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Source code is freely available at https://gitlab.com/mcfrith/noverlap. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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".