MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sparse Neighbor Joining: rapid phylogenetic inference using a sparse distance matrix

2024· article· en· W4404607640 on OpenAlexaff
Semih Kurt, Alexandre Bouchard‐Côté, Jens Lagergren

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersVetenskapsrådet
KeywordsDistance matrixPython (programming language)Computer scienceSparse matrixDistance matrices in phylogenyPhylogenetic treeInferenceComputationMatrix (chemical analysis)Set (abstract data type)Tree (set theory)AlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceData miningCombinatoricsArtificial intelligenceMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MOTIVATION: Phylogenetic reconstruction is a fundamental problem in computational biology. The Neighbor Joining (NJ) algorithm offers an efficient distance-based solution to this problem, which often serves as the foundation for more advanced statistical methods. Despite prior efforts to enhance the speed of NJ, the computation of the n2 entries of the distance matrix, where n is the number of phylogenetic tree leaves, continues to pose a limitation in scaling NJ to larger datasets. RESULTS: In this work, we propose a new algorithm which does not require computing a dense distance matrix. Instead, it dynamically determines a sparse set of at most O(n log n) distance matrix entries to be computed in its basic version, and up to O(n log 2n) entries in an enhanced version. We show by experiments that this approach reduces the execution time of NJ for large datasets, with a trade-off in accuracy. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Sparse Neighbor Joining is implemented in Python and freely available at https://github.com/kurtsemih/SNJ.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.007

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207