ANCESTRAL MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD OF EVOLUTIONARY TREES IS HARD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maximum likelihood (ML) (Neyman, 1971) is an increasingly popular optimality criterion for selecting evolutionary trees. Finding optimal ML trees appears to be a very hard computational task--in particular, algorithms and heuristics for ML take longer to run than algorithms and heuristics for maximum parsimony (MP). However, while MP has been known to be NP-complete for over 20 years, no such hardness result has been obtained so far for ML. In this work we make a first step in this direction by proving that ancestral maximum likelihood (AML) is NP-complete. The input to this problem is a set of aligned sequences of equal length and the goal is to find a tree and an assignment of ancestral sequences for all of that tree's internal vertices such that the likelihood of generating both the ancestral and contemporary sequences is maximized. Our NP-hardness proof follows that for MP given in (Day, Johnson and Sankoff, 1986) in that we use the same reduction from Vertex Cover; however, the proof of correctness for this reduction relative to AML is different and substantially more involved.
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 | 0.002 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".