Hybridization Number on Three Trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phylogenetic networks are leaf-labelled directed acyclic graphs that are used to describe nontreelike evolutionary histories and are thus a generalization of phylogenetic trees. The hybridization number of a phylogenetic network is the sum of all indegrees minus the number of nodes plus one. The Hybridization Number problem takes as input a collection of phylogenetic trees and asks to construct a phylogenetic network that contains an embedding of each of the input trees and has a smallest possible hybridization number. We present an algorithm for the Hybridization Number problem on three binary phylogenetic trees on n leaves, which runs in time O(c k poly(n)), with k the hybridization number of an optimal network and c some positive constant. For the case of two trees, an algorithm with running time O(3.18 k n) was proposed before whereas an algorithm with running time O(c k poly(n)) for more than two trees had prior to this article remained elusive. The algorithm for two trees uses the close connection to acyclic agreement forests to achieve a linear exponent in the running time, while previous algorithms for more than two trees (explicitly or implicitly) relied on a brute force search through all possible underlying network topologies, leading to running times that are not O(c k poly(n)), for any c. The connection to acyclic agreement forests is much weaker for more than two trees, so even given the right agreement forest, the reconstruction of the network poses major challenges. We prove novel structural results that allow us to reconstruct a network without having to guess the underlying topology. Our techniques generalize to more than three input trees with the exception of one key lemma that maps nodes in the network to tree nodes and, thus,
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".