Theoretical Guarantees for Phylogeny Inference from Single-Cell Lineage Tracing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract CRISPR-Cas9 lineage tracing technologies have emerged as a powerful tool for investigating development in single-cell contexts, but exact reconstruction of the underlying clonal relationships in experiment is plagued by data-related complications. These complications are functions of the experimental parameters in these systems, such as the Cas9 cutting rate, the diversity of indel outcomes, and the rate of missing data. In this paper, we develop two theoretically grounded algorithms for reconstruction of the underlying phylogenetic tree, as well as asymptotic bounds for the number of recording sites necessary for exact recapitulation of the ground truth phylogeny at high probability. In doing so, we explore the relationship between the problem difficulty and the experimental parameters, with implications for experimental design. Lastly, we provide simulations validating these bounds and showing the empirical performance of these algorithms. Overall, this work provides a first theoretical analysis of phylogenetic reconstruction in the CRISPR-Cas9 lineage tracing technology.
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 | 0.028 | 0.182 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".