Algorithm for Haplotype Inference via Galled-Tree Networks with Simple Galls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of determining haplotypes from genotypes has gained considerable prominence in the research community. Here the focus is on determining sets of SNP values on individual chromosomes since such information captures the genetic causes of diseases. The most efficient algorithmic tool for haplotyping is based on perfect phylogenetic trees. A drawback of this method is that it cannot be applied in situations when the data contains homoplasies (multiple mutations of the same character) or recombinations. Recently, Song et al. ( 2005 ) studied the two cases: haplotyping via imperfect phylogenies with a single homoplasy and via galled-tree networks with one gall. In Gupta et al. ( 2010 ), we have shown that the haplotyping via galled-tree networks is NP-hard, even if we restrict to the case when every gall contains at most 3 mutations. We present a polynomial algorithm for haplotyping via galled-tree networks with simple galls (each having two mutations) for genotype matrices which satisfy a natural condition which is implied by presence of at least one 1 in each column that contains a 2. In the end, we give the experimental results comparing our algorithm with PHASE on simulated data.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".