MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389992281 · doi:10.1089/cmb.2023.0317

A Fixed-Parameter Tractable Algorithm for Finding Agreement Cherry-Reduced Subnetworks in Level-1 Orchard Networks

2023· article· en· W4389992281 on OpenAlexaff
Kaari Landry, Olivier Tremblay-Savard, Manuel Lafond

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Biology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReticulateSubnetworkPhylogenetic treeEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionClass (philosophy)AlgorithmOrchardMathematicsTime complexityBinary numberSimple (philosophy)CombinatoricsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceBiologyBotanyHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phylogenetic networks are increasingly being considered better suited to represent the complexity of the evolutionary relationships between species. One class of phylogenetic networks that have received a lot of attention recently is the class of orchard networks, which is composed of networks that can be reduced to a single leaf using cherry reductions. Cherry reductions, also called cherry-picking operations, remove either a leaf of a simple cherry (sibling leaves sharing a parent) or a reticulate edge of a reticulate cherry (two leaves whose parents are connected by a reticulate edge). In this article, we present a fixed-parameter tractable algorithm to solve the problem of finding a maximum agreement cherry-reduced subnetwork (MACRS) between two rooted binary level-1 networks. This is the first exact algorithm proposed to solve the MACRS problem. As proven in an earlier work, there is a direct relationship between finding an MACRS and calculating a distance based on cherry operations. As a result, the proposed algorithm also provides a distance that can be used for the comparison of level-1 networks .

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational BiologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207