A PRACTICAL ALGORITHM FOR ESTIMATION OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ANCESTRAL RECONSTRUCTION ERROR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ancestral sequence reconstruction problem asks to predict the DNA or protein sequence of an ancestral species, given the sequences of extant species. Such reconstructions are fundamental to comparative genomics, as they provide information about extant genomes and the process of evolution that gave rise to them. Arguably the best method for ancestral reconstruction is maximum likelihood estimation. Many effective algorithms for accurately computing the most likely ancestral sequence have been proposed. We consider the less-studied problem of computing the expected reconstruction error of a maximum likelihood reconstruction, given the phylogenetic tree and model of evolution, but not the extant sequences. This situation can arise, for example, when deciding which genomes to sequence for a reconstruction project given a gene-tree phylogeny (The Taxon Selection Problem). In most applications, the reconstruction error is necessarily very small, making Monte Carlo simulations very inefficient for accurate estimation. We present the first practical algorithm for this problem and demonstrate how it can be used to quickly and accurately estimate the reconstruction accuracy. We then use our method as a kernel in a heuristic algorithm for the taxon selection problem. The implementation is available at http://www.mcb.mcgill.ca/ blanchem/mlerror.
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 | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.007 |
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".