A weighted least-squares approach for inferring phylogenies from incomplete distance matrices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: The problem of phylogenetic inference from datasets including incomplete or uncertain entries is among the most relevant issues in systematic biology. In this paper, we propose a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees from partial distance matrices. The new method combines the usage of the four-point condition and the ultrametric inequality with a weighted least-squares approximation to solve the problem of missing entries. It can be applied to infer phylogenies from evolutionary data including some missing or uncertain information, for instance, when observed nucleotide or protein sequences contain gaps or missing entries. RESULTS: In a number of simulations involving incomplete datasets, the proposed method outperformed the well-known Ultrametric and Additive procedures. Generally, the new method also outperformed all the other competing approaches including Triangle and Fitch which is the most popular least-squares method for reconstructing phylogenies. We illustrate the usefulness of the introduced method by analyzing two well-known phylogenies derived from complete mammalian mtDNA sequences. Some interesting theoretical results concerning the NP-hardness of the ordinary and weighted least-squares fitting of a phylogenetic tree to a partial distance matrix are also established. AVAILABILITY: The T-Rex package including this method is freely available for download at http://www.info.uqam.ca/~makarenv/trex.html
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".