Designing Weights for Quartet-Based Methods When Data are Heterogeneous Across Lineages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Homogeneity across lineages is a general assumption in phylogenetics according to which nucleotide substitution rates are common to all lineages. Many phylogenetic methods relax this hypothesis but keep a simple enough model to make the process of sequence evolution more tractable. On the other hand, dealing successfully with the general case (heterogeneity of rates across lineages) is one of the key features of phylogenetic reconstruction methods based on algebraic tools. The goal of this paper is twofold. First, we present a new weighting system for quartets (ASAQ) based on algebraic and semi-algebraic tools, thus especially indicated to deal with data evolving under heterogeneous rates. This method combines the weights of two previous methods by means of a test based on the positivity of the branch lengths estimated with the paralinear distance. ASAQ is statistically consistent when applied to data generated under the general Markov model, considers rate and base composition heterogeneity among lineages and does not assume stationarity nor time-reversibility. Second, we test and compare the performance of several quartet-based methods for phylogenetic tree reconstruction (namely QFM, wQFM, quartet puzzling, weight optimization and Willson's method) in combination with several systems of weights, including ASAQ weights and other weights based on algebraic and semi-algebraic methods or on the paralinear distance. These tests are applied to both simulated and real data and support weight optimization with ASAQ weights as a reliable and successful reconstruction method that improves upon the accuracy of global methods (such as neighbor-joining or maximum likelihood) in the presence of long branches or on mixtures of distributions on trees.
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 | 0.011 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".