Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Phylogenetic trees are a mathematical formalisation of evolutionary histories between organisms, species, genes, cancer cells, etc. For many applications, e.g. when analysing virus transmission trees or cancer evolution, (phylogenetic) time trees are of interest, where branch lengths represent times. Computational methods for reconstructing time trees from (typically molecular) sequence data, for example Bayesian phylogenetic inference using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods, rely on algorithms that sample the treespace. They employ tree rearrangement operations such as SPR (Subtree Prune and Regraft) and NNI (Nearest Neighbour Interchange) or, in the case of time tree inference, versions of these that take times of internal nodes into account. While the classic SPR tree rearrangement is well-studied, its variants for time trees are less understood, limiting comparative analysis for time tree methods. In this paper we consider a modification of the classical SPR rearrangement on the space of ranked phylogenetic trees, which are trees equipped with a ranking of all internal nodes. This modification results in two novel treespaces, which we propose to study. We begin this study by discussing algorithmic properties of these treespaces, focusing on those relating to the complexity of computing distances under the ranked SPR operations as well as similarities and differences to known tree rearrangement based treespaces. Surprisingly, we show the counterintuitive result that adding leaves to trees can actually decrease their ranked SPR distance, which may have an impact on the results of time tree sampling algorithms given uncertain “rogue taxa”.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".