Polynomial Phylogenetic Analysis of Tree Shapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bstract Phylogenetic trees are a central tool in evolutionary biology. They demonstrate evolutionary patterns among species, genes, and with modern sequencing technologies, patterns of ancestry among sets of individuals. Phylogenetic trees usually consist of tree shapes, branch lengths and partial labels. Comparing tree shapes is a challenging aspect of comparing phylogenetic trees as there are few tools to describe tree shapes in a quantitative, accurate, comprehensive and easy-to-interpret way. Current methods to compare tree shapes are often based on scalar indices reflecting tree imbalance, and on frequencies of small subtrees. In this paper, we present tree comparisons and applications based on a polynomial that fully characterizes trees. Polynomials are important tools to describe discrete structures and have been used to study various objects including graphs and knots. There are also polynomials that describe rooted trees. We use tree-defining polynomials to compare tree shapes randomly generated by simulations and tree shapes reconstructed from data. Moreover, we show that the comparisons can be used to estimate parameters and to select the best-fit model that generates specific tree shapes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".