MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413308490 · doi:10.1186/s13015-025-00284-8

The path-label reconciliation (PLR) dissimilarity measure for gene trees

2025· article· en· W4413308490 on OpenAlexafffund
Alitzel López Sánchez, José Antonio Ramírez-Rafael, Alejandro Flores-Lamas, Maribel Hernández-Rosales, Manuel Lafond

Bibliographic record

VenueAlgorithms for Molecular Biology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaUniversité de Sherbrooke
KeywordsMetric (unit)Computer scienceMeasure (data warehouse)Normalization (sociology)Tree (set theory)Path (computing)Set (abstract data type)Data miningArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmMathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background In this study, we investigate the problem of comparing gene trees reconciled with the same species tree using a novel semi-metric, called the Path-Label Reconciliation (PLR) dissimilarity measure. This approach not only quantifies differences in the topology of reconciled gene trees, but also considers discrepancies in predicted ancestral gene-species maps and speciation/duplication events, offering a refinement of existing metrics such as Robinson-Foulds (RF) and their labeled extensions LRF and ELRF. A tunable parameter $$\alpha$$ α also allows users to adjust the balance between its species map and event labeling components. Our contributions We show that PLR can be computed in linear time and that it is a semi-metric. We also discuss the diameters of reconciled gene tree measures, which are important in practice for normalization, and provide initial bounds on PLR, LRF, and ELRF. To validate PLR, we simulate reconciliations and perform comparisons with LRF and ELRF. The results show that PLR provides a more evenly distributed range of distances, making it less susceptible to overestimating differences in the presence of small topological changes, while at the same time being computationally efficient. We also apply our measure to evaluate the set of possible rootings of gene trees against a gold standard, and demonstrate that our measure is better at distinguishing one best gene tree among multiple candidates. Furthermore, our findings suggest that the theoretical diameter is rarely reached in practice. The PLR measure advances phylogenetic reconciliation by combining theoretical rigor with practical applicability. Future research will refine its mathematical properties, explore its performance on different types of trees, and integrate it with existing bioinformatics tools for large-scale evolutionary analyses. The implementation of the PLR distance is available in the open-source PyPI package : https://pypi.org/project/parle/ .

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlgorithms for Molecular BiologySame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207