A novel pairwise sequence alignment algorithm for similarity search in massive datasets
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
Advances in sequencing technologies have resulted in the production of a huge volume of data. Since the pairwise sequence alignment plays an essential role in comparing sequencing data, various algorithms have been developed. Among the previously suggested algorithms, the basic local alignment search tool (BLAST) is currently employed in a wide range of biological applications, largely due to its low time and memory complexity. However, not only BLAST but also other improved sequence alignment algorithms may fail to produce accurate results, therefore, more efficient algorithms can be highly advantageous. In the present study, we introduce a novel algorithm for sequence alignment (NASA) consisting of preprocessing and aligning steps. In the preprocessing step, the positions of residues are determined within a provided nucleotide or peptide sequence, resulting in seeking only informative regions. In the aligning step, based on a constant number of comparisons, the sequence similarity score is calculated between two sequences in a linear time and memory orders. To evaluate NASA, a large volume of sequencing data was analyzed and the outcomes were compared with other algorithms. The results showed that NASA outperforms other basic algorithms in terms of the elapsed time, required memory, system resource utilization, and alignment score precision. Collectively, NASA might be a promising method for retrieving similar sequences from large datasets.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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