Linear time complexity de novo long read genome assembly with GoldRush
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current state-of-the-art de novo long read genome assemblers follow the Overlap-Layout-Consensus paradigm. While read-to-read overlap - its most costly step - was improved in modern long read genome assemblers, these tools still often require excessive RAM when assembling a typical human dataset. Our work departs from this paradigm, foregoing all-vs-all sequence alignments in favor of a dynamic data structure implemented in GoldRush, a de novo long read genome assembly algorithm with linear time complexity. We tested GoldRush on Oxford Nanopore Technologies long sequencing read datasets with different base error profiles sourced from three human cell lines, rice, and tomato. Here, we show that GoldRush achieves assembly scaffold NGA50 lengths of 18.3-22.2, 0.3 and 2.6 Mbp, for the genomes of human, rice, and tomato, respectively, and assembles each genome within a day, using at most 54.5 GB of random-access memory, demonstrating the scalability of our genome assembly paradigm and its implementation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".