TOWARD AN ALGEBRAIC UNDERSTANDING OF HAPLOTYPE INFERENCE BY PURE PARSIMONY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Haplotype inference by pure parsimony (HIPP) is known to be NP-Hard. Despite this, many algorithms successfully solve HIPP instances on simulated and real data. In this paper, we explore the connection between algebraic rank and the HIPP problem, to help identify easy and hard instances of the problem. The rank of the input matrix is known to be a lower bound on the size an optimal HIPP solution. We show that this bound is almost surely tight for data generated by randomly pairing p haplotypes derived from a perfect phylogeny when the number of distinct population members is more than (1 + epsilon/2)p log p (for some positive epsilon). Moreover, with only a constant multiple more population members, and a common mutation, we can almost surely recover an optimal set of haplotypes in polynomial time. We examine the algebraic effect of allowing recombination, and bound the effect recombination has on rank. In the process, we prove a stronger version of the standard haplotype lower bound. We also give a complete classification of the rank of a haplotype matrix derived from a galled tree. This classification identifies a set of problem instances with recombination when the rank lower bound is also tight for the HIPP problem.
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 | 0.006 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".