MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400218314 · doi:10.3389/fbinf.2024.1391086

Maximum-scoring path sets on pangenome graphs of constant treewidth

2024· article· en· W4400218314 on OpenAlexafffund
Broňa Brejová, Travis Gagie, Eva Herencsárová, Tomáš Vinař

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Bioinformatics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersHORIZON EUROPE Marie Sklodowska-Curie ActionsEuropean CommissionVedecká Grantová Agentúra MŠVVaŠ SR a SAVNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAgentúra Ministerstva Školstva, Vedy, Výskumu a Športu SRNational Institutes of HealthNational Human Genome Research InstituteAgentúra na Podporu Výskumu a Vývoja
KeywordsTreewidthConstant (computer programming)Path (computing)MathematicsCombinatoricsPartial k-treePathwidth1-planar graphGraphComputer scienceChordal graph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We generalize a problem of finding maximum-scoring segment sets, previously studied by Csűrös (IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, 2004, 1, 139–150), from sequences to graphs. Namely, given a vertex-weighted graph G and a non-negative startup penalty c , we can find a set of vertex-disjoint paths in G with maximum total score when each path’s score is its vertices’ total weight minus c . We call this new problem maximum-scoring path sets (MSPS). We present an algorithm that has a linear-time complexity for graphs with a constant treewidth. Generalization from sequences to graphs allows the algorithm to be used on pangenome graphs representing several related genomes and can be seen as a common abstraction for several biological problems on pangenomes, including searching for CpG islands, ChIP-seq data analysis, analysis of region enrichment for functional elements, or simple chaining problems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in BioinformaticsSame topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207