Finding maximum common contractions between phylogenetic networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we lay the groundwork on the comparison of phylogenetic networks based on edge contractions and expansions as edit operations, as originally proposed by Robinson and Foulds to compare trees. We prove that these operations connect the space of all phylogenetic networks on the same set of leaves, even if we forbid contractions that create cycles. This allows to define an operational distance on this space, as the minimum number of contractions and expansions required to transform one network into another. We highlight the difference between this distance and the computation of the maximum common contraction between two networks. Given its ability to outline a common structure between them, which can provide valuable biological insights, we study the algorithmic aspects of the latter. We first prove that computing a maximum common contraction between two networks is NP-hard, even when the maximum degree, the size of the common contraction, or the number of leaves is bounded. We also provide lower bounds to the problem based on the Exponential-Time Hypothesis. Nonetheless, we do provide a polynomial-time algorithm for weakly galled trees, a generalization of galled trees.
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 | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".