Optimal solution to the set cover problem with a vicinity constraint for estimating genotype tissue expression profiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivation: Genes located in close genomic proximity tend to have more similar genotype tissue expression profiles. This suggests that expression profiles for the entire genome could be estimated using a smaller set of experimentally determined profiles from carefully selected reference genes, thereby reducing the need for extensive experimental measurements. Results: We address this challenge by mapping it as a set cover problem, aiming to identify an optimal number of gene sets that can cover the entire genome. However, traditional set cover algorithms are either slow in runtime or yield non-optimal results for large datasets. To overcome this limitation, we developed a dynamic programming algorithm that leverages the consecutive ordering of genes within vicinity sets. Our algorithm solves this vicinity set cover problem with tractable runtime while minimizing the average distance between reference genes and non-reference genes within the vicinity, thereby maximizing estimation accuracy. This algorithm can be used to reduce the number of required experiments in organisms lacking genotype tissue expression data or in new human datasets with expanded tissue sets. Lastly, our algorithm also has broader applications for set cover optimization problems in other fields. Availability and implementation: The source code along with all implementation details are available at: https://github.com/sensationTI/vicinity_set_cover.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".