Effects of rooting via out-groups on in-group topology in phylogeny
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
Users of phylogenetic methods require rooted trees, because the direction of time depends on the placement of the root. While phylogenetic trees are typically rooted by using an out-group, this mechanism is inappropriate when the addition of an out-group changes the in-group topology. We perform a formal analysis of phylogenetic algorithms under the inclusion of distant out-groups. It turns out that linkage-based algorithms (including UPGMA) and a class of bisecting methods do not modify the topology of the in-group when an out-group is included. By contrast, the popular neighbour joining algorithm fails this property in a strong sense: every data set can have its structure destroyed by some arbitrarily distant outlier. Furthermore, including multiple outliers can lead to an arbitrary topology on the in-group. The standard rooting approach that uses out-groups may be fundamentally unsuited for neighbour joining.
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 | 0.001 | 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