2 tool steps across 2 unique tools, including tools inside nested subworkflows. A plus sign denotes parallel branches.
Workflow
Bowtie2→MultiQC
Complete query
The full task shown to the agent, excluding execution-condition instructions.
Filter the provided paired-end reads against the hg38 human reference assembly using a suitable paired-end short-read aligner. Remove read pairs that the selected aligner classifies as valid paired-end alignments to the human reference under its standard paired-end criteria, and retain all other pairs. Do not trim or otherwise modify the retained reads, and keep the two output files synchronized. Write the synchronized retained mates to `final_answer/filtered_forward.fastqsanger.gz` and `final_answer/filtered_reverse.fastqsanger.gz`. Write `final_answer/method.json` as a JSON object with a single key `aligner` whose value is the common name of the aligner you used.
acc evaluator
acc compares the final output files with the reference outputs.
A step passes when the trace directly shows that it ran. Parameter correctness and output quality are measured separately by acc.
Step 1Align the paired reads to hg38 using a suitable paired-end short-read aligner.
A successful paired-end short-read alignment execution used hg38, not another human assembly.
Both mates from the provided input pairs entered the alignment/classification chain.
Step 2Remove pairs classified by the selected aligner as valid paired-end human alignments; preserve all retained reads unchanged and keep mates synchronized.
Pair removal used the selected aligner's valid/proper paired-end human-alignment classification.
If either mate belonged to a removed valid human pair, the whole pair was removed.
Retained sequences and qualities are byte-for-byte unchanged apart from FASTQ container compression and ordering allowed by the contract.
Forward and reverse retained outputs contain the same synchronized read identifiers and pass final-answer checks.
Model results and score explanations
The 3 results below acc 1.000 each include a score explanation and quantitative evidence. A score below 1.000 is not automatically an error. Each replicate shows its recorded workflow, acc, step score, and Hugging Face trace. Galaxy histories can be imported by link but are not published in Galaxy's public history listing.
GPT-5.5
Open-ended code
R1acc · step score 1.000
1.000
Recorded workflow
Align paired reads to hg38 with Bowtie2→Align paired reads to hg38 with BWA→Classify alignments and retain non-human read pairs→Write and validate synchronized retained FASTQ mates
All 4 recorded steps
Align paired reads to hg38 with Bowtie2
Align paired reads to hg38 with BWA
Classify alignments and retain non-human read pairs
Write and validate synchronized retained FASTQ mates
Validate inputs and reference — Table transformation→Split hg38 reference into contig chunks→Align minimap2 hg38 contig chunks→Filter original fastq pairs — Filter rows→Validate final outputs — Table transformation
All 5 recorded steps
Validate inputs and reference — Table transformation
Split hg38 reference into contig chunks
Align minimap2 hg38 contig chunks
Filter original fastq pairs — Filter rows
Validate final outputs — Table transformation
Score explanation
Borderline pair classificationMinimap2 made a slightly different set of primary proper-pair decisions at ambiguous alignment boundaries. The retained files are complete; the deficit comes from those pair-classification differences.Evidence. This minimap2 output reached acc 0.995730 under the specified short-read preset and synchronized-pair filtering.
Borderline pair classificationBWA-MEM retained three more pairs than the BWA-MEM benchmark target. The difference is confined to borderline proper-pair classifications rather than trimming, sequence modification, or unsynchronized mates.Evidence. The output retained 20,899 pairs versus 20,896 in the target and reached acc 0.999900.
Borderline pair classificationBWA-MEM classified a small number of ambiguous alignments differently at the proper-pair boundary. The output files stayed synchronized and unmodified; only the retained-versus-removed decision changed.Evidence. The output retained 20,897 pairs versus 20,896; 20,891 retained IDs matched. Of the removed-pair set, 57,188 of 57,194 target decisions matched.