Colorful orthology clustering in bounded-degree similarity graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clustering genes in similarity graphs is a popular approach for orthology prediction. Most algorithms group genes without considering their species, which results in clusters that contain several paralogous genes. Moreover, clustering is known to be problematic when in-paralogs arise from ancient duplications. Recently, we proposed a two-step process that avoids these problems. First, we infer clusters of only orthologs (i.e. with only genes from distinct species), and second, we infer the missing inter-cluster orthologs. In this paper, we focus on the first step, which leads to a problem we call Colorful Clustering . In general, this is as hard as classical clustering. However, in similarity graphs, the number of species is usually small, as well as the neighborhood size of genes in other species. We therefore study the problem of clustering in which the number of colors is bounded by [Formula: see text], and each gene has at most [Formula: see text] neighbors in another species. We show that the well-known cluster editing formulation remains NP-hard even when [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]. We then propose a fixed-parameter algorithm in [Formula: see text] to find the single best cluster in the graph. We implemented this algorithm and included it in the aforementioned two-step approach. Experiments on simulated data show that this approach performs favorably to applying only an unconstrained clustering step.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".