Comparison of Additive Trees Using Circular Orders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been postulated that existing species have been linked in the past in a way that can be described using an additive tree structure. Any such tree structure reflecting species relationships is associated with a matrix of distances between the species considered which is called a distance matrix or a tree metric matrix. A circular order of elements of X corresponds to a circular (clockwise) scanning of the subset X of vertices of a tree drawn on a plane. This paper describes an optimal algorithm using circular orders to compare the topology of two trees given by their distance matrices. This algorithm allows us to compute the Robinson and Foulds topologic distance between two trees. It employs circular order tree reconstruction to compute an ordered bipartition table of the tree edges for both given distance matrices. These bipartition tables are then compared to determine the Robinson and Foulds topologic distance, known to be an important criterion of tree similarity. The described algorithm has optimal time complexity, requiring O(n(2)) time when performed on two n x n distance matrices. It can be generalized to get another optimal algorithm, which enables the strict consensus tree of k unrooted trees, given their distance matrices, to be constructed in O(kn(2)) time.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".