A Poissonian Model of Indel Rate Variation for Phylogenetic Tree Inference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While indel rate variation has been observed and analyzed in detail, it is not taken into account by current indel-aware phylogenetic reconstruction methods. In this work, we introduce a continuous time stochastic process, the geometric Poisson indel process, that generalizes the Poisson indel process by allowing insertion and deletion rates to vary across sites. We design an efficient algorithm for computing the probability of a given multiple sequence alignment based on our new indel model. We describe a method to construct phylogeny estimates from a fixed alignment using neighbor joining. Using simulation studies, we show that ignoring indel rate variation may have a detrimental effect on the accuracy of the inferred phylogenies, and that our proposed method can sidestep this issue by inferring latent indel rate categories. We also show that our phylogenetic inference method may be more stable to taxa subsampling than methods that either ignore indels or indel rate variation. [evolutionary stochastic process; indel rate variation; Poisson indel process; TKF91.].
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 | 0.014 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".