EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Anne J. Blaschke
dblp:426/0916
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · unresolved
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Bioinformatics and computational biology › sequence analysis
DNA language model |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | The impact of tokenizer selection in genomic language models · Bioinform. 2025 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › sequence analysis › DNA language model
genome tokenization |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | The impact of tokenizer selection in genomic language models · Bioinform. 2025 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › genomics
computational genomics |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | The impact of tokenizer selection in genomic language models · Bioinform. 2025 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › sequence analysis
sequence classification |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | The impact of tokenizer selection in genomic language models · Bioinform. 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
state space model · 0.9k-mer tokenization · 0.9character tokenization · 0.9byte pair encoding · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | The impact of tokenizer selection in genomic language modelsabstractMOTIVATION: Genomic language models have recently emerged as a new method to decode, interpret, and generate genetic sequences. Existing genomic language models have utilized various tokenization methods, including character tokenization, overlapping and nonoverlapping k-mer tokenization, and byte-pair encoding, a method widely used in natural language models. Genomic sequences differ from natural language because of their low character variability, complex and overlapping features, and inconsistent directionality. These features make subword tokenization in genomic language models significantly different from both traditional language models and protein language models. RESULTS: This study explores the impact of tokenization in genomic language models by evaluating their downstream performance on 44 classification fine-tuning tasks. We also perform a direct comparison of byte pair encoding and character tokenization in Mamba, a state-space model. Our results indicate that character tokenization outperforms subword tokenization methods on tasks that rely on nucleotide-level resolution, such as splice site prediction and promoter detection. While byte-pair tokenization had stronger performance on the SARS-CoV-2 variant classification task, we observed limited statistically significant differences between tokenization methods on the remaining downstream tasks. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Detailed results of all benchmarking experiments are available in https://github.com/leannmlindsey/DNAtokenization. Training datasets and pretrained models are available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/leannmlindsey. Datasets and processing scripts are available at doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16287401 and doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16287130. LeAnn Lindsey, Nicole L. Pershing, Anisa Habib, Keith Dufault-Thompson, W. Zac Stephens, Anne J. Blaschke, Xiaofang Jiang, Hari Sundar |
Bioinform. | 6 |