Computing the distribution of the Robinson-Foulds distance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the exponential growth of genome databases, the importance of phylogenetics has increased dramatically over the past years. Studying phylogenetic trees enables us not only to understand how genes, genomes, and species evolve, but also helps us predict how they might change in future. One of the crucial aspects of phylogenetics is the comparison of two or more phylogenetic trees. There are different metrics for computing the dissimilarity between a pair of trees. The Robinson-Foulds (RF) distance is one of the widely used metrics on the space of labeled trees. The distribution of the RF distance from a given tree has been studied before, but the fastest known algorithm for computing this distribution is a slow, albeit polynomial-time, O(l5) algorithm. In this paper, we modify the dynamic programming algorithm for computing the distribution of this distance for a given tree by leveraging the number-theoretic transform (NTT), and improve the running time from O(l5) to O(l3 log l), where l is the number of tips of the tree. In addition to its practical usefulness, our method represents a theoretical novelty, as it is, to our knowledge, one of the rare applications of the number-theoretic transform for solving a computational biology problem.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".