Building alternative consensus trees and supertrees using <i>k</i> -means and Robinson and Foulds distance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Each gene has its own evolutionary history which can substantially differ from the evolutionary histories of other genes. For example, some individual genes or operons can be affected by specific horizontal gene transfer and recombination events. Thus, the evolutionary history of each gene should be represented by its own phylogenetic tree which may display different evolutionary patterns from the species tree that accounts for the main patterns of vertical descent. The output of traditional consensus tree or supertree inference methods is a unique consensus tree or supertree. Here, we describe a new efficient method for inferring multiple alternative consensus trees and supertrees to best represent the most important evolutionary patterns of a given set of phylogenetic trees (i.e. additive trees or X -trees). We show how a specific version of the popular k -means clustering algorithm, based on some interesting properties of the Robinson and Foulds topological distance, can be used to partition a given set of trees into one (when the data are homogeneous) or multiple (when the data are heterogeneous) cluster(s) of trees. We adapt the popular Caliński-Harabasz, Silhouette, Ball and Hall, and Gap cluster validity indices to tree clustering with k -means. A special attention is paid to the relevant but very challenging problem of inferring alternative supertrees, built from phylogenies constructed for different, but mutually overlapping, sets of taxa. The use of the Euclidean approximation in the objective function of the method makes it faster than the existing tree clustering techniques, and thus perfectly suitable for the analysis of large genomic datasets. In this study, we apply it to discover alternative supertrees characterizing the main patterns of evolution of SARS-CoV-2 and the related betacoronaviruses.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".