Back

Aardvark: Sifting through differences in a mound of variants

Holt, J. M.; Kronenberg, Z.; Saunders, C. T.; Dolzhenko, E.; Krusche, P.; Olson, N. D.; Zook, J. M.; Eberle, M. A.

2025-10-06 bioinformatics
10.1101/2025.10.03.680257 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Variant benchmarking is critical in assessing the accuracy of genomic secondary pipelines. However, traditional benchmarking tools that require exact genotype matches inject biases from variant representation and are ill-suited for tandem repeat or structural variation. We describe Aardvark, a variant benchmarking tool that introduces the basepair score to directly compare haplotype sequences, reducing representation biases while allowing for partial credit scoring. The tool also includes a traditional genotype score and supports separate or joint benchmarking of small variants, tandem repeats, and structural variants (<10 kb). Aardvark accepts standard inputs, runs {approx}16x faster than hap.py, and is freely available and open source (https://github.com/PacificBiosciences/aardvark).

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Genome Biology
○ 637 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
18.4%
Similar papers in this journal
2
Bioinformatics
◐ 1204 papers in training set
Top 1%
18.4%
Similar papers in this journal
3
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 3%
11.8%
Similar papers in this journal
4
BMC Bioinformatics
○ 457 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
8.9%
Similar papers in this journal
50% of probability mass above
5
Bioinformatics Advances
◐ 203 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
6.7%
Similar papers in this journal
6
Genome Research
● 468 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.0%
7
NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics
◐ 242 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.2%
8
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 40%
2.4%
9
BMC Genomics
○ 406 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
10
GENETICS
◐ 483 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
11
Briefings in Bioinformatics
◐ 354 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.9%
12
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 44%
1.9%
13
Nucleic Acids Research
◐ 1281 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.7%
14
GigaScience
◐ 212 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
15
PLOS Genetics
● 862 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.1%
16
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
◐ 252 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
17
Nature Methods
○ 385 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.0%
18
Molecular Biology and Evolution
◐ 542 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
19
Algorithms for Molecular Biology
○ 17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
20
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 73%
0.8%
21
IEEE Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics
● 20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
22
Nature Computational Science
○ 55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.