Integer Programming Approaches to Haplotype Inference by Pure Parsimony
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2003, Gusfield introduced the Haplotype Inference by Pure Parsimony (HIPP) problem and presented an integer program (IP) that quickly solved many simulated instances of the problem. Although it solved well on small instances, Gusfield's IP can be of exponential size in the worst case. Several authors have presented polynomial-sized IPs for the problem. In this paper, we further the work on IP approaches to HIPP. We extend the existing polynomial-sized IPs by introducing several classes of valid cuts for the IP. We also present a new polynomial-sized IP formulation that is a hybrid between two existing IP formulations and inherits many of the strengths of both. Many problems that are too complex for the exponential-sized formulations can still be solved in our new formulation in a reasonable amount of time. We provide a detailed empirical comparison of these IP formulations on both simulated and real genotype sequences. Our formulation can also be extended in a variety of ways to allow errors in the input or model the structure of the population under consideration.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".