panvram: GPU-resident random access to a human pangenome cohort
Abstract
Repeatedly sampling short sequence windows from a human pangenome requires an access representation as well as compression. panvram stores each assembly as a reference-relative block archive and pools these archives on a GPU. For 558 haplotype assemblies, the default q4k representation occupies 16.642 GB of persistent pools including the decoded reference; a packed-reference, compact-directory representation occupies 11.634 GB. These quantities are not peak application memory. In the C1 experime...
Description / Details
Repeatedly sampling short sequence windows from a human pangenome requires an access representation as well as compression. panvram stores each assembly as a reference-relative block archive and pools these archives on a GPU. For 558 haplotype assemblies, the default q4k representation occupies 16.642 GB of persistent pools including the decoded reference; a packed-reference, compact-directory representation occupies 11.634 GB. These quantities are not peak application memory. In the C1 experiment, default and fully compact forms delivered 743,271 and 736,762 windows/s; a separate public Colab run delivered 741,931 and 680,760 windows/s. All are batch API measurements and must not be pooled as repeated trials of an identical environment. Full-decoding checks compared reconstructed FASTA checksums with the manifest. On the CPU, the M6 shuffled-window workload at the same cohort cardinality reported 26 requests/s for AGC and 145,222 requests/s for refrel3 q4k. This comparison concerns one-thread requests of 4 KiB on the recorded warm-cache workload, not all genome-access patterns. AGC provides the smaller incremental archive: 5.40 MB/assembly versus 13.04 MB/assembly for refrel3 q16k, with different exclusions; the size pair is not the same refrel3 configuration as the q4k timing pair. We derive an expected-work expression for fixed independent granules and distinguish it from an empirical median-latency predictor. Cohort-scale counter and DRAM measurements motivate a locality hypothesis, but do not establish a causal per-miss latency or independently reproduce a model-failure verdict. The window-cost verdict at N=558 is published with its harness and raw timings.
Source: arXiv:2610.25149v1 - http://arxiv.org/abs/2610.25149v1 PDF: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2610.25149v1 Original Link: http://arxiv.org/abs/2610.25149v1
Please sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!
Oct 20, 2026
Biotechnology
Biology
0