A simple 4-approximation algorithm for maximum agreement forests on multiple unrooted binary trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maximum agreement forests have been used as a measure of dissimilarity of two or more phylogenetic trees on a given set of taxa. An agreement forest is a set of trees that can be obtained from each of the input trees by deleting edges and suppressing degree-2 vertices. A maximum agreement forest is such a forest with the minimum number of components. We present a simple 4-approximation algorithm for computing a maximum agreement forest of multiple unrooted binary trees. This algorithm applies LP rounding to an extension of a recent ILP formulation of the maximum agreement forest problem on two trees by Van Wersch et al. [13] . We achieve the same approximation ratio as the algorithm by Chen et al. [3] , but our algorithm is extremely simple. We also prove that no algorithm based on the ILP formulation by Van Wersch et al. can achieve an approximation ratio of 4 − ε , for any ε > 0 , even on two trees. To this end, we prove that the integrality gap of the ILP approaches 4 as the size of the two input trees grows.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".