Mirroring co-evolving trees in the light of their topologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Determining the interaction partners among protein/domain families poses hard computational problems, in particular in the presence of paralogous proteins. Available approaches aim to identify interaction partners among protein/domain families through maximizing the similarity between trimmed versions of their phylogenetic trees. Since maximization of any natural similarity score is computationally difficult, many approaches employ heuristics to evaluate the distance matrices corresponding to the tree topologies in question. In this article, we devise an efficient deterministic algorithm which directly maximizes the similarity between two leaf labeled trees with edge lengths, obtaining a score-optimal alignment of the two trees in question. RESULTS: Our algorithm is significantly faster than those methods based on distance matrix comparison: 1 min on a single processor versus 730 h on a supercomputer. Furthermore, we outperform the current state-of-the-art exhaustive search approach in terms of precision, while incurring acceptable losses in recall. AVAILABILITY: A C implementation of the method demonstrated in this article is available at http://compbio.cs.sfu.ca/mirrort.htm
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".