A General Framework for Gene Tree Correction Based on Duplication-Loss Reconciliation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the key role played by gene trees and species phylogenies in biological studies, it is essential to have as much confidence as possible on the available trees. As phylogenetic tools are error-prone, it is a common task to use a correction method for improving an initial tree. Various correction methods exist. In this paper we focus on those based on the Duplication-Loss reconciliation model. The polytomy resolution approach consists in contracting weakly supported branches and then refining the obtained non-binary tree in a way minimizing a reconciliation distance with the given species tree. On the other hand, the supertree approach takes as input a set of separated subtrees, either obtained for separared orthology groups or by removing the upper branches of an initial tree to a certain level, and amalgamating them in an optimal way preserving the topology of the initial trees. The two classes of problems have always been considered as two separate fields, based on apparently different models. In this paper we give a unifying view showing that these two classes of problems are in fact special cases of a more general problem that we call LabelGTC, whose input includes a 0-1 edge-labelled gene tree to be corrected. Considering a tree as a set of triplets, we also formulate the TripletGTC Problem whose input includes a set of gene triplets that should be preserved in the corrected tree. These two general models allow to unify, understand and compare the principles of the duplication-loss reconciliation-based tree correction approaches. We show that LabelGTC is a special case of TripletGTC. We then develop appropriate algorithms allowing to handle these two general correction problems.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".