ON THE INFERENCE OF PARSIMONIOUS INDEL EVOLUTIONARY SCENARIOS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given a multiple alignment of orthologous DNA sequences and a phylogenetic tree for these sequences, we investigate the problem of reconstructing a most parsimonious scenario of insertions and deletions capable of explaining the gaps observed in the alignment. This problem, called the Indel Parsimony Problem, is a crucial component of the problem of ancestral genome reconstruction, and its solution provides valuable information to many genome functional annotation approaches. We first show that the problem is NP-complete. Second, we provide an algorithm, based on the fractional relaxation of an integer linear programming formulation. The algorithm is fast in practice, and the solutions it produces are, in most cases, provably optimal. We describe a divide-and-conquer approach that makes it possible to solve very large instances on a simple desktop machine, while retaining guaranteed optimality. Our algorithms are tested and shown efficient and accurate on a set of 1.8 Mb mammalian orthologous sequences in the CFTR region.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it