Polytomy refinement for the correction of dubious duplications in gene trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Large-scale methods for inferring gene trees are error-prone. Correcting gene trees for weakly supported features often results in non-binary trees, i.e. trees with polytomies, thus raising the natural question of refining such polytomies into binary trees. A feature pointing toward potential errors in gene trees are duplications that are not supported by the presence of multiple gene copies. RESULTS: We introduce the problem of refining polytomies in a gene tree while minimizing the number of created non-apparent duplications in the resulting tree. We show that this problem can be described as a graph-theoretical optimization problem. We provide a bounded heuristic with guaranteed optimality for well-characterized instances. We apply our algorithm to a set of ray-finned fish gene trees from the Ensembl database to illustrate its ability to correct dubious duplications. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The C++ source code for the algorithms and simulations described in the article are available at http://www-ens.iro.umontreal.ca/~lafonman/software.php. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".