On Minimizers and Convolutional Filters: Theoretical Connections and Applications to Genome Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Minimizers and convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are two quite distinct popular techniques that have both been employed to analyze categorical 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 they can be used to classify the sequence. In this study, our main result is a careful mathematical analysis of hash function properties showing that for sequences over a categorical alphabet, random Gaussian initialization of convolutional filters with max-pooling is equivalent to choosing a minimizer ordering such that selected k-mers are (in Hamming distance) far from the k-mers within the sequence but close to other minimizers. In empirical experiments, we find that this property manifests as decreased density in repetitive regions, both in simulation and on real human telomeres. We additionally train from scratch a CNN embedding of synthetic short-reads from the SARS-CoV-2 genome into 3D Euclidean space that locally recapitulates the linear sequence distance of the read origins, a modest step toward building a deep learning assembler, although it is at present too slow to be practical. In total, this article provides a partial explanation for the 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.
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 it