Currently accepting pre-train models as candidates to run my neural network analysis pipeline on during intervals of the process. Early work is showing promising results in early stage intervention of drift and more organized results.
I never really posted about my DaisyChain project because it's still work in progress. I decided to post a small bit about it and the demo. DaisyChain Genomics: four small DNA/RNA specialists chained behind a learned router that behave like one big genomics model, at ~7× less active compute. I built a modular genomics model chasing a 500M-parameter foundation model, then caught myself measuring it wrong. Here's the honest version. DaisyChain is a different bet: instead of one monolithic DNA model, it's four ~74M specialists (eukaryote, prokaryote, mRNA, splice) chained behind a learned router, each distilled per-domain from HuggingFaceBio's Carbon-500M. Every specialist reports how surprised it is (bits/base) and the router hands each sequence to the link most at home with it. In lineage it's a cluster Branch-Train-Merge mixture of experts, so you can chain on a new domain without retraining the others. The pitch: ~295M total params (under Carbon-500M), but only one ~74M specialist runs per query, so ~7× cheaper per token, routing at 100% held-out. The mistake: Carbon works in 6-mers, and I'd been scoring likelihood as 6-mer cross-entropy. By that number I was +0.043 bits/base behind, splice even "beating" Carbon. But Carbon scores at the base-pair level, which is harder and more honest. Re-run their way: Real gap: 1.862 vs 1.787 bits/base, +0.089 behind, not +0.043 No domain actually beats Carbon; the "splice win" was an artifact Seq recovery: euk 31.5% vs 38.9%, bacteria 40.9% vs 54.1%
DaisyChain is still behind Carbon-500M (itself a draft model, not built to top benchmarks), but by a number I can defend, and the gap closes with every per-domain pass. 🌼