MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084895856 · doi:10.1109/tcbb.2007.1008

Quartet-Based Phylogeny Reconstruction with Answer Set Programming

2007· article· en· W2084895856 on OpenAlexafffund
Gang Wu, Jia-Huai You, Guohui Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaChinese Academy of SciencesUniversity of AlbertaRice UniversityUniversity of Utah
KeywordsUltrametric spaceAnswer set programmingRepresentation (politics)Set (abstract data type)Computer scienceTheoretical computer scienceConsistency (knowledge bases)Perspective (graphical)MathematicsAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceDiscrete mathematicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a new representation is presented for the Maximum Quartet Consistency (MQC) problem, where solving the MQC problem becomes searching for an ultrametric matrix that satisfies a maximum number of given quartet topologies. A number of structural properties of the MQC problem in this new representation are characterized through formulating into answer set programming, a recent powerful logic programming tool for modeling and solving search problems. Using these properties, a number of optimization techniques are proposed to speed up the search process. The experimental results on a number of simulated data sets suggest that the new representation, combined with answer set programming, presents a unique perspective to the MQC 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and BioinformaticsSame topicLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeFrench-language works237,207