MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281385537 · doi:10.1142/s0219720022500123

Invariant transformers of Robinson and Foulds distance matrices for Convolutional Neural Network

2022· article· en· W4281385537 on OpenAlexafffund
Nadia Tahiri, Andrey Veriga, Aleksandr Koshkarov, B.V. Morozov

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEvolution and Paleontology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
KeywordsPhylogenetic treeTree rearrangementDistance matrices in phylogenyDistance matrixConvolutional neural networkTree (set theory)Artificial intelligenceSupertreePhylogenetic networkSet (abstract data type)Invariant (physics)PhylogeneticsInferenceComputer scienceMathematicsAlgorithmBiologyCombinatoricsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolutionary histories of genes are susceptible of differing greatly from each other which could be explained by evolutionary variations in horizontal gene transfers or biological recombinations. A phylogenetic tree would therefore represent the evolutionary history of each gene, which may present different patterns from the species tree that defines the main evolutionary patterns. In addition, phylogenetic trees of closely related species should be merged, thus minimizing the topological conflicts they present and obtaining consensus trees (in the case of homogeneous data) or supertrees (in the case of heterogeneous data). The traditional approaches are consensus tree inference (if the set of trees contains the same set of species) or supertrees (if the set of trees contains different, but overlapping sets of species). Consensus trees and supertrees are constructed to produce unique trees. However, these methods lose precision with respect to different evolutionary variability. Other approaches have been implemented to preserve this variability using the [Formula: see text]-means algorithm or the [Formula: see text]-medoids algorithm. Using a new method, we determine all possible consensus trees and supertrees that best represent the most significant evolutionary models in a set of phylogenetic trees, thereby increasing the precision of the results and decreasing the time required. Results: This paper presents in detail a new method for predicting the number of clusters in a Robinson and Foulds (RF) distance matrix using a convolutional neural network (CNN). We developed a new CNN approach (called CNNTrees) for multiple tree classification. This new strategy returns a number of clusters of the input phylogenetic trees for different-size sets of trees, which makes the new approach more stable and more robust. The paper provides an in-depth analysis of the relevant, but very difficult, problem of constructing alternative supertrees using phylogenies with different but overlapping sets of taxa. This new model will play an important role in the inference of Trees of Life (ToL). Availability and implementation: CNNTrees is available through a web server at https://tahirinadia.github.io/ . The source code, data and information about installation procedures are also available at https://github.com/TahiriNadia/CNNTrees . Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available on GitHub platform. The evolutionary history of species is not unique, but is specific to sets of genes. Indeed, each gene has its own evolutionary history that differs considerably from one gene to another. For example, some individual genes or operons may be affected by specific horizontal gene transfer and recombination events. Thus, the evolutionary history of each gene must be represented by its own phylogenetic tree, which may exhibit different evolutionary patterns than the species tree that accounts for the major vertical descent patterns. The result of traditional consensus tree or supertree inference methods is a single consensus tree or supertree. In this paper, we present in detail a new method for predicting the number of clusters in a Robinson and Foulds (RF) distance matrix using a convolutional neural network (CNN). We developed a new CNN approach (CNNTrees) to construct multiple tree classification. This new strategy returns a number of clusters in the order of the input trees, which allows this new approach to be more stable and also more robust.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bioinformatics and Computational BiologySame topicEvolution and Paleontology StudiesFrench-language works237,207