Puzzle Hi-C: An accurate scaffolding software
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-quality, chromosome-scale genomes are essential for genomic analyses. Analyses, including 3D genomics, epigenetics, and comparative genomics rely on a high-quality genome assembly, which is often accomplished with the assistance of Hi-C data. Curation of genomes reveal that current Hi-C-assisted scaffolding algorithms either generate ordering and orientation errors or fail to assemble high-quality chromosome-level scaffolds. Here, we offer the software Puzzle Hi-C, which uses Hi-C reads to accurately assign contigs or scaffolds to chromosomes. Puzzle Hi-C uses the triangle region instead of the square region to count interactions in a Hi-C heatmap. This strategy dramatically diminishes scaffolding interference caused by long-range interactions. This software also introduces a dynamic, triangle window strategy during assembly. Initially small, the window expands with interactions to produce more effective clustering. Puzzle Hi-C outperforms available scaffolding tools.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.025 |
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".