Analyzing Phylogenetic Trees with a Tree Lattice Coordinate System and a Graph Polynomial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phylogenetic trees are a central tool in many areas of life science and medicine. They demonstrate evolutionary patterns among species, genes, and patterns of ancestry among sets of individuals. The tree shapes and branch lengths of phylogenetic trees encode evolutionary and epidemiological information. To extract information from tree shapes and branch lengths, representation and comparison methods for phylogenetic trees are needed. Representing and comparing tree shapes and branch lengths of phylogenetic trees are challenging, for a tree shape is unlabeled and can be displayed in numerous different forms, and branch lengths of a tree shape are specific to edges whose positions vary with respect to the displayed forms of the tree shape. In this article, we introduce representation and comparison methods for rooted unlabeled phylogenetic trees based on a tree lattice that serves as a coordinate system for rooted binary trees with branch lengths and a graph polynomial that fully characterizes tree shapes. We show that the introduced tree representations and metrics provide distance-based likelihood-free methods for tree clustering, parameter estimation, and model selection and apply the methods to analyze phylogenies reconstructed from virus sequences. [Graph polynomial; likelihood-free inference; phylogenetics; tree lattice; tree metrics.].
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".