Constructing Ancestral Recombination Graphs through Reinforcement Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the years, many approaches have been proposed to build ancestral recombination graphs (ARGs), graphs used to represent the genetic relationship between individuals. Among these methods, many rely on the assumption that the most likely graph is among the shortest ones. In this paper, we propose a new approach to build short ARGs: Reinforcement Learning (RL). We exploit the similarities between finding the shortest path between a set of genetic sequences and their most recent common ancestor and finding the shortest path between the entrance and exit of a maze, a classic RL problem. In the maze problem, the learner, called the agent, must learn the directions to take in order to escape as quickly as possible, whereas in our problem, the agent must learn the actions to take between coalescence, mutation, and recombination in order to reach the most recent common ancestor as quickly as possible. Our results show that RL can be used to build ARGs as short as those built with a heuristic algorithm optimized to build short ARGs, and sometimes even shorter. Moreover, our method allows to build a distribution of short ARGs for a given sample, and can also generalize learning to new samples not used during the learning process.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".