MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946737733 · doi:10.1109/tcbb.2022.3177956

Testing Multispecies Coalescent Simulators Using Summary Statistics

2022· article· en· W2946737733 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth S. Allman, Hector Baños, John A. Rhodes

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Science Foundation of Sri LankaSimons FoundationDivision of Mathematical SciencesNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCoalescent theoryInferenceMetric (unit)Computer scienceTree (set theory)Process (computing)Scale (ratio)Data miningTheoretical computer scienceMachine learningArtificial intelligenceMathematicsBiologyProgramming languageEngineeringGenePhylogenetic treeGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As genomic-scale datasets motivate research on species tree inference, simulators of the multispecies coalescent (MSC) process have become essential for the testing and evaluation of new inference methods. However, the simulators themselves must be tested to ensure that they give valid samples. This work develops methods for checking whether a collection of gene trees is in accord with the MSC model on a given species tree. When applied to well-known simulators, we find that several give flawed samples. The tests presented are capable of validating both topological and metric properties of gene tree samples, and are implemented in a freely available R package MSCsimtester so that developers and users may easily apply them.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score0.641

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and BioinformaticsSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207