Comparison of phylogenetic trees defined on different but mutually overlapping sets of taxa: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phylogenetic trees represent the evolutionary relationships and ancestry of various species or groups of organisms. Comparing these trees by measuring the distance between them is essential for applications such as tree clustering and the Tree of Life project. Many distance metrics for phylogenetic trees focus on trees defined on the same set of taxa. However, some problems require calculating distances between trees with different but overlapping sets of taxa. This study reviews state-of-the-art distance measures for such trees, covering six major approaches, including the constraint-based Robinson-Foulds (RF) distance RF(-), the completion-based RF(+), the generalized RF (GRF), the dissimilarity measure, the vectorial tree distance, and the geodesic distance in the extended Billera-Holmes-Vogtmann tree space. Among these, three RF-based methods, RF(-), RF(+), and GRF, were examined in detail on generated clusters of phylogenetic trees defined on different but mutually overlapping sets of taxa. Additionally, we reviewed nine related techniques, including leaf imputation methods, the tree edit distance, and visual comparison. A comparison of the related distance measures, highlighting their principal advantages and shortcomings, is provided. This review offers valuable insights into their applicability and performance, guiding the appropriate use of these metrics based on tree type (rooted or unrooted) and information type (topological or branch lengths).
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".