A program for verification of phylogenetic network models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Genetic material is transferred in a non-reproductive manner across species more frequently than commonly thought, particularly in the bacteria kingdom. On one hand, extant genomes are thus more properly considered as a fusion product of both reproductive and non-reproductive genetic transfers. This has motivated researchers to adopt phylogenetic networks to study genome evolution. On the other hand, a gene's evolution is usually tree-like and has been studied for over half a century. Accordingly, the relationships between phylogenetic trees and networks are the basis for the reconstruction and verification of phylogenetic networks. One important problem in verifying a network model is determining whether or not certain existing phylogenetic trees are displayed in a phylogenetic network. This problem is formally called the tree containment problem. It is NP-complete even for binary phylogenetic networks. RESULTS: We design an exponential time but efficient method for determining whether or not a phylogenetic tree is displayed in an arbitrary phylogenetic network. It is developed on the basis of the so-called reticulation-visible property of phylogenetic networks. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: A C-program is available for download on http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/∼matzlx/tcp_package CONTACT: matzlx@nus.edu.sg 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.
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 it