Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 49 references

PhyloGen: Language Model-Enhanced Phylogenetic Inference via Graph Structure Generation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read PhyloGen claims that a pretrained genomic language model can generate phylogenetic trees from raw DNA and jointly optimize topology and branch lengths, beating MCMC-based methods on all eight benchmark datasets.

desk verdict The core claim of state-of-the-art MLL/ELBO is unsupported because the likelihood is never defined, but the idea of embedding raw sequences with a genome LM for joint tree generation is novel and worth a serious look. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18827 v1 pith:BLBMRXFV submitted 2024-12-25 q-bio.PE cs.AI

ChenRui Duan , Zelin Zang , Siyuan Li , Yongjie Xu , Stan Z. Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.PEcs.AI
keywords phylogeneticinferencevariationalgenomiclanguagemodeltreetopologygenerationbranchlengthestimationNeighbor-Joiningmarginallog-likelihoodDNAembeddings
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

PhyloGen claims that phylogenetic inference can be recast as a graph-structure generation problem solved end-to-end from raw DNA sequences. Instead of requiring aligned sequences and an explicit evolutionary substitution model, the method embeds each genome with a pretrained language model, builds an initial tree with Neighbor-Joining on learned distances, and then jointly refines topology and branch lengths through variational inference. On eight standard benchmark datasets, the paper reports the highest marginal log-likelihood and ELBO values of all methods compared, including MCMC baselines such as MrBayes. If this holds, a single differentiable pipeline could replace slow MCMC sampling for routine tree inference.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a three-module pipeline: DNABERT2 feature extraction turns raw sequences into embeddings; the PhyloTree Construction module maps those embeddings through an MLP to a latent variable $z^*$, computes a distance matrix, and feeds it to the Neighbor-Joining algorithm to get an initial tree; the PhyloTree Structure Modeling module then co-optimizes topology and branch lengths through a TreeEncoder/TreeDecoder pair, a dual-pass traversal enhanced by DGCNN, and reparameterized branch-length sampling. A scoring function $S$ adds extra gradient information that the paper shows tracks the ELBO curve, while a multi-sample ELBO with an annealed prior forms the training objective.

What would settle it

Run the paper's stated loss (Eq. 8) with an explicitly written and implemented $p(Y \mid \tau(z), B_\tau)$ on DS1 and check whether the MLL reproduces the reported -6910.02; either the likelihood specification fails to close or the number does not reproduce, and the central outperformance claim would be settled.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central finding is that phylogenetic inference can be solved as a conditional tree-structure generation problem: a genomic language model embeds raw DNA, a distance matrix built from the embedding space seeds an initial tree, and variational refinement jointly updates topology and branch lengths. On eight real-world datasets with 27 to 64 species, PhyloGen reports the highest MLL and ELBO of every method compared, including MrBayes; for example, on DS1 the MLL goes from -7108.42 (MrBayes) to -6910.02. The paper also reports broad topological diversity and bipartition frequencies that track the MrBayes posterior, which it offers as evidence that the learned trees are biologically faithful.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a well-defined probability of the observed sequences given the tree, $p(Y \mid \tau(z), B_\tau)$, exists and is actually evaluated by the model, since the paper never writes this likelihood down; if it is left undefined, the reported MLL and ELBO values cannot be compared with MCMC results.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Raw, unaligned DNA can be used as direct input to phylogenetic inference, removing a preprocessing step that constrains many current methods.
  • Tree topology and branch lengths are optimized jointly in one differentiable objective instead of being estimated in separate stages.
  • The reported runtimes on DS1 (about 6.5 hours) are far below those of PhyloGFN and GeoPhy, suggesting a practical speed advantage for datasets of this size.
  • The learned latent distances carry phylogenetic signal: replacing them with Euclidean or cosine distances degrades MLL, tying the method's accuracy to its embedding-based distance matrix.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the reported MLL values are reproducible, the result suggests that DNA language-model embeddings compress enough evolutionary signal to substitute for an explicit substitution model, at least on the small-to-medium datasets tested.
  • Because the initial tree comes from Neighbor-Joining, the method inherits NJ's known sensitivity to long-branch attraction; replacing NJ with a learned construction step would test whether that bottleneck matters.
  • The unspecified conditional likelihood $p(Y \mid \tau(z), B_\tau)$ means the numerical MLL values should be checked against an explicit implementation; a public release with the likelihood written out would settle whether the comparison to MrBayes is on equal footing.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PhyloGen, a method that infers phylogenetic trees directly from raw DNA sequences by combining a pretrained genomic language model (DNABERT2) with a graph-structure-generation framework. The pipeline extracts embeddings, constructs an initial tree via Neighbor-Joining on a latent distance matrix, and then jointly models topology and branch lengths through variational inference, a tree encoder/decoder, a DGCNN branch-length module, and an auxiliary scoring function. The main empirical claim, stated in the abstract and Section 4.2, is that PhyloGen achieves the highest Marginal Log Likelihood (MLL) and Evidence Lower Bound (ELBO) on all eight benchmark datasets compared with MCMC-based, tree-representation, and tree-generation baselines, without relying on evolutionary models or equal-length sequence alignment.

Significance. If the claims were correct, PhyloGen would be a substantial advance: a single differentiable pipeline from unaligned raw sequences to a joint posterior over topology and branch lengths, avoiding explicit substitution models and alignment. The manuscript reports a broad set of experiments across eight standard benchmarks, including topological diversity, robustness to node addition/deletion, ablations, and bipartition-frequency comparisons, which is a reasonable breadth of evidence. The core quantitative claim, however, rests on an undefined likelihood: p(Y | tau(z), B_tau) is never specified as a probability density over the observed sequences, so the reported MLL and ELBO values have no well-defined target. The bipartition-frequency comparison to MrBayes is the only external validation, but it is visual, limited to three datasets, and not quantified. The paper does not provide code or data, and the baseline numbers in Section 4.2 are accompanied by a contradictory provenance statement. For these reasons, the central claim of state-of-the-art MLL/ELBO is not currently supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (6)-(8); Appendix D.2] The objective is not a well-defined probabilistic model because p(Y | tau(z), B_tau) is never defined. The Feature Extraction module maps sequences Y to embeddings E via DNABERT2 (Section 3.A), and no inverse model, sequence-level decoder, or density over Y is specified anywhere. Section 3.2 refers to 'the conditional probability of the observed data Y' without giving a density, so Eq. 8 is not an ELBO for a marginal likelihood of Y, and the MLL estimate in Appendix E.1, obtained by sampling 1000 importance samples, has no well-defined target distribution. Since the abstract and Section 4.2 base the main claim on highest MLL/ELBO values, the reported hundreds-of-nats advantage over MrBayes is uninterpretable as a likelihood comparison.
  2. [Section 3.B] The distance matrix definition D(i,j) = sum_{i,j=1}^N z_i^* xor z_j^* is not computable as written: the double summation over i and j makes the right-hand side independent of the chosen pair (i,j), and the symbol xor is said to represent an 'XOR operation reflecting nucleotide mismatches' even though z_i^* are continuous real-valued latent vectors. No definition of XOR on continuous vectors, or a mapping from embeddings to nucleotides, is supplied. Because this D is fed into the Neighbor-Joining step that produces tau(z*), the initial tree construction is ill-defined and not reproducible.
  3. [Appendix D.2, Eqs. (25)-(30); Section 3.3, Eqs. (10)-(12)] The gradient derivation is algebraically inconsistent. Differentiating an expectation with respect to Q_theta gives grad_theta E_Q[f] = E_Q[grad_theta log Q f + grad_theta f], but Eq. (27) keeps only the score-function term. Eq. (30) then reintroduces grad_theta H[Q_theta(z)] with the incorrect identity grad_theta H[Q] = -E_Q[grad_theta log Q], and the sign conventions in Eq. (10) do not follow from Eq. (7). As a result, the paper does not show that the training procedure optimizes the stated ELBO, even under the assumption that the likelihood is defined.
  4. [Section 4.2, Table 1; Appendix E.2] The provenance of the baseline MLL values is unclear. Appendix E.2 states that 'the results of all baseline methods are not included in the MLL tables, as some of the baseline methods are not provided with source code, and the results of the MLL metrics are not shown in the original paper,' yet Table 1 lists MLL values for MrBayes, SBN, VBPI, VBPI-GNN, ARTree, GeoPhy, and PhyloGFN. The authors must state which numbers are taken from prior papers, which are recomputed, and with which settings; otherwise the central 'outperforms all baselines' claim cannot be checked. Table 1 also contains an obvious numerical typo: the GeoPhy DS4 entry is -133342.71, three orders of magnitude lower than the neighboring DS4 values around -13330.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.B and Section 3.C.2, Eq. (4)] The symbol xor is used for two different operations: in the distance matrix D it denotes the alleged XOR on latent vectors, and in Eq. (4) it denotes MAX aggregation. Reusing one symbol for two unrelated operations makes the method statement confusing.
  2. [Section 4.4, Fig. 5] The claimed similarity of the bipartition-frequency curves to MrBayes is only assessed visually and only for DS1-DS3; report a quantitative divergence measure, such as Jensen-Shannon divergence, and include the remaining datasets.
  3. [Section 3.1, Fig. 3] The statement that 'the closer the S curve is to the ELBO curve, the more it proves S can effectively evaluate the model performance' is not a valid evaluation because S is an auxiliary network trained jointly with the same ELBO objective; closeness of the two curves would be expected even if S carries no useful information.
  4. [Appendix E.1, Algorithm 1] The training description is ambiguous: Section E.1 says K = 2 Monte Carlo samples and a total of one million Monte Carlo samples, while Algorithm 1 updates parameters per iteration; please clarify the relationship between training steps, Monte Carlo samples, and the 1000-sample importance estimate used for MLL.
  5. [Section 4.5, Table 4] The Delta columns in Table 4 are not defined relative to a stated reference value, and the claim that positive Delta after node deletion represents 'improved performance' is counterintuitive for likelihood-based metrics; please specify the reference and explain the sign convention.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed SOTA MLL/ELBO superiority reduces to the training objective because the likelihood p(Y|τ,Bτ) is never defined and the reported MLL is an importance-sampling estimate from the same variational model.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.2 Eq. (8) and Appendix E.1]
    "For better performance and reduced variance, we adopt a multi-sample approach[23]: Lmulti-sample(Q, R) = 1/K Σ_{k=1}^K log p(Y, B_k^τ | τ(z_k)) p(τ(z_k)) R(z_k | τ(z*_k)) / (Q(B_k^τ | τ(z_k)) Q(z*_k)) ... The MLL estimate is derived by sampling the importance of 1000 samples, with the larger mean value being better."

    Equation (8) is the training objective that PhyloGen maximizes. Appendix E.1 then reports the MLL as an importance-sampling estimate from the same variational family Q using the same unnormalized joint term p(Y, Bτ | τ(z)). The paper never specifies a generative likelihood p(Y | τ(z), Bτ) over the observed sequences; it only says this term 'represents the conditional probability of the observed data Y'. Consequently, the MLL values in Table 1 are not evaluations against an independent phylogenetic likelihood; they are Monte Carlo averages of the model's own learned score. The claim of the highest MLL and ELBO on all datasets is therefore a restatement of having optimized this internal objective, rather than an external benchmark result.

  2. self definitional [Sec. 3.2 Eq. (6) and Appendix D.2 Eq. (22)]
    "L(Q) = Eq[log p(Y, τ(z), Bτ )] − Eq[log q(τ (z), Bτ )] ... L(Q) = Eq[ log p(Y |τ (z), Bτ )p(Bτ |τ (z))p(τ (z)) / (q(Bτ |τ (z))q(τ (z))) ]"

    The ELBO is defined using the variational posterior q(τ(z), Bτ), which is the distribution being trained, and the joint term p(Y, Bτ | τ(z)), whose likelihood factor p(Y | τ(z), Bτ) is never given as an explicit sequence-evolution model. Thus the 'marginal likelihood' bounded by this ELBO is a quantity internal to the model's own learned densities, not a fixed external target such as the substitution-model likelihood used by MrBayes. Reporting that PhyloGen achieves the best ELBO is then equivalent to reporting that the training objective is high, which is a self-definitional rather than an independent empirical success.

full rationale

The central quantitative claim of the paper is that PhyloGen 'outperforms other methods, achieving the highest MLL and ELBO values on all datasets' (Section 4.2). The derivation chain for this claim is circular at the metric-definition level: the paper's learning objective (Eqs. 7-9) is built from the same unnormalized term p(Y, Bτ | τ(z)) that the reported MLL estimate averages over, using the same variational posterior Q as the importance-sampling proposal (Appendix E.1). Because p(Y | τ(z), Bτ) is never specified as a probabilistic model of the DNA sequences, the reported MLL and ELBO are not measurements against an independent benchmark; they are the model's own fitted score. This is a partial circularity rather than a complete one: the bipartition-frequency comparison with MrBayes (Section 4.4) provides an independent, if qualitative, external check, and the method's runtime and robustness results do not reduce to the training objective. However, the paper's headline claim of state-of-the-art MLL/ELBO does reduce by construction, so the circularity score is 6 rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities, but it rests on an unspecified likelihood, an undefined distance operation, and several hand-picked hyperparameters. The most consequential item is the missing definition of p(Y | tau(z), B_tau), which makes the reported MLL and ELBO ungrounded.

free parameters (6)
  • TopoNet output dimension (emd) = 8
    Selected on DS1 in Appendix E.5 Table 9; ELBO and MLL vary materially with this choice and the best configuration is reported.
  • Hidden dimension = 256
    Tuned on DS1 in Table 9; performance drops at 64, 128, and 512.
  • Monte Carlo samples K = 2
    Chosen in Appendix E.1; the multi-sample ELBO estimate depends on K.
  • Annealing schedule = H=100,000; initial temperature 0.001
    Chosen in Appendix E.1; affects convergence and the final ELBO and MLL values.
  • Branch length prior = Exp(10)
    Assumed in Appendix E.1; marginal likelihood values depend on this prior choice.
  • Learning rate schedule = 1e-4, gamma 0.75 every 200,000 steps
    Training hyperparameters chosen in Appendix E.1; not fitted to data but part of the reported configuration.
assumptions (7)
  • ad hoc to paper The likelihood p(Y | tau(z), B_tau) is well-defined and computable from DNABERT2 embeddings and the learned latent space.
    Invoked throughout Section 3.2 (Eqs. 6-8) but never written down; all ELBO and MLL values depend on it.
  • domain assumption Tree topology tau(z) and branch lengths B_tau are conditionally independent.
    Stated in Section 3.2; standard in VI phylogenetics but an assumption that shapes the variational objective.
  • ad hoc to paper The XOR operation on continuous latent vectors is defined and reflects nucleotide mismatches.
    Used in Section 3.B to define the distance matrix D for Neighbor-Joining; XOR on continuous floats is undefined as written.
  • domain assumption DNABERT2 embeddings of unaligned sequences preserve phylogenetic signal without alignment or an evolutionary model.
    Central to the Feature Extraction module in Section 3.A; no validation is provided beyond the paper's own MLL numbers.
  • domain assumption Neighbor-Joining on the learned distance matrix produces a valid initial topology for gradient-based refinement.
    Used in Section 3.B; NJ is standard, but the distance matrix is learned and not shown to satisfy NJ's additivity assumptions.
  • ad hoc to paper The scoring function S provides gradient information aligned with the ELBO.
    Introduced in Section 3.1 and added to the total loss in Eq. 9; the only justification is the empirical similarity of S and ELBO curves.
  • domain assumption A uniform prior over tree topologies is appropriate.
    Stated in Appendix E.1; the reported MLL depends on this prior.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PhyloGen: Language Model-Enhanced Phylogenetic Inference via Graph Structure Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BLBMRXFV

@misc{pith2026241218827,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PhyloGen: Language Model-Enhanced Phylogenetic Inference via Graph Structure Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BLBMRXFV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18827}
}
read the original abstract

Phylogenetic trees elucidate evolutionary relationships among species, but phylogenetic inference remains challenging due to the complexity of combining continuous (branch lengths) and discrete parameters (tree topology). Traditional Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods face slow convergence and computational burdens. Existing Variational Inference methods, which require pre-generated topologies and typically treat tree structures and branch lengths independently, may overlook critical sequence features, limiting their accuracy and flexibility. We propose PhyloGen, a novel method leveraging a pre-trained genomic language model to generate and optimize phylogenetic trees without dependence on evolutionary models or aligned sequence constraints. PhyloGen views phylogenetic inference as a conditionally constrained tree structure generation problem, jointly optimizing tree topology and branch lengths through three core modules: (i) Feature Extraction, (ii) PhyloTree Construction, and (iii) PhyloTree Structure Modeling. Meanwhile, we introduce a Scoring Function to guide the model towards a more stable gradient descent. We demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of PhyloGen on eight real-world benchmark datasets. Visualization results confirm PhyloGen provides deeper insights into phylogenetic relationships.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18827 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of PhyloTree Tree Inference Methods. (a) The inputs are aligned sequences, and topologies are learned from existing tree structures using methods like SBNs, which rely on MCMC-based methods for pre-generated candidate trees without considering branch lengths directly. (b) The inputs are aligned sequences, and then tree structures and branch lengths are directly inferred by variational inference and biolog… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Framework of PhyloGen. A. Feature Extraction module extracts genome embeddings E from raw sequences Y using a pre-trained language model. B. PhyloTree Construction module uses E to compute topological parameters, which generate an initial tree structure τ ∗ via the Neighbor￾Joining algorithm. C. PhyloTree Structure Modeling module jointly model τ and Bτ through the topology learning component (TreeEncoder R and Tree… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of ELBO and Scoring Function over Training Steps on DS1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of ELBO and MLL Metrics for DS1 Dataset with Different Baselines. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparative Bipartition Frequency Distribution in Tree Topologies for DS1, DS2, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ablation Study on DS1 Dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Plot of PhyloTrees. 5 Conclusion Contributions In this study, we introduced PhyloGen, a novel approach leveraging pre-trained genomic language models to enhance phylogenetic tree inference through graph structure generation. By addressing the limitations of traditional…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Analysis of the Cosine Similarities between Scoring Function and ELBO. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visualization of phylogenetic trees. The left side shows a phylogenetic tree constructed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Enhanced visualization of phylogenetic relationships depicted through a coloured heatmap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Phylogenetic tree visualization. This figure shows the phylogenetic relationships of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Y . Chen, L. Wu, and M. Zaki. Iterative deep graph learning for graph neural networks: Better and robust node embeddings. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:19314–19326, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Diaconis

    P. Diaconis. Sequential importance sampling for estimating the number of perfect matchings in bipartite graphs: An ongoing conversation with laci. Building Bridges II: Mathematics of László Lovász, pages 223–233, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Franceschi, M

    L. Franceschi, M. Niepert, M. Pontil, and X. He. Learning discrete structures for graph neural networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1972–1982. PMLR, 2019

    work page 1972

  4. [4]

    J. R. Garey, T. J. Near, M. R. Nonnemacher, and S. A. Nadler. Molecular evidence for acanthocephala as a subtaxon of rotifera. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 43:287–292, 1996

    work page 1996

  5. [5]

    He and X.-S

    F. He and X.-S. Hu. Hubbell’s fundamental biodiversity parameter and the simpson diversity index. Ecology Letters, 8(4):386–390, 2005

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    S. B. Hedges, K. D. Moberg, and L. R. Maxson. Tetrapod phylogeny inferred from 18s and 28s ribosomal rna sequences and a review of the evidence for amniote relationships. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 7(6):607–633, 1990

    work page 1990

  7. [7]

    D. A. Henk, A. Weir, and M. Blackwell. Laboulbeniopsis termitarius, an ectoparasite of termites newly recognized as a member of the laboulbeniomycetes. Mycologia, 95(4):561–564, 2003

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Höhna and A

    S. Höhna and A. J. Drummond. Guided tree topology proposals for bayesian phylogenetic inference. Systematic biology, 61(1):1–11, 2012

    work page 2012

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Höhna, M

    S. Höhna, M. J. Landis, T. A. Heath, B. Boussau, N. Lartillot, B. R. Moore, J. P. Huelsenbeck, and F. Ronquist. Revbayes: Bayesian phylogenetic inference using graphical models and an interactive model-specification language. Systematic biology, 65(4):726–736, 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    E. J. Hu, N. Malkin, M. Jain, K. E. Everett, A. Graikos, and Y . Bengio. Gflownet-em for learning compositional latent variable models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 13528–13549. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    J. P. Huelsenbeck, F. Ronquist, R. Nielsen, and J. P. Bollback. Bayesian inference of phylogeny and its impact on evolutionary biology. science, 294(5550):2310–2314, 2001

    2001

  4. [12]

    W. Jin, Y . Ma, X. Liu, X. Tang, S. Wang, and J. Tang. Graph structure learning for robust graph neural networks. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, pages 66–74, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Kapli, Z

    P. Kapli, Z. Yang, and M. J. Telford. Phylogenetic tree building in the genomic age. Nature Reviews Genetics, 21(7):428–444, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    D. P. Kingma and M. Welling. Auto-encoding variational bayes.arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013

    2013 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Koptagel, O

    H. Koptagel, O. Kviman, H. Melin, N. Safinianaini, and J. Lagergren. Vaiphy: a variational inference based algorithm for phylogeny. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:14758–14770, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Lakner, P

    C. Lakner, P. Van Der Mark, J. P. Huelsenbeck, B. Larget, and F. Ronquist. Efficiency of markov chain monte carlo tree proposals in bayesian phylogenetics. Systematic biology, 57(1):86–103, 2008

    2008

  10. [18]

    R. Liao, Y . Li, Y . Song, S. Wang, W. Hamilton, D. K. Duvenaud, R. Urtasun, and R. Zemel. Effi- cient graph generation with graph recurrent attention networks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Y . Liu, Y . Zheng, D. Zhang, H. Chen, H. Peng, and S. Pan. Towards unsupervised deep graph structure learning. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022, pages 1392–1403, 2022. 11

    2022

  12. [20]

    Malkin, M

    N. Malkin, M. Jain, E. Bengio, C. Sun, and Y . Bengio. Trajectory balance: Improved credit assignment in gflownets. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:5955–5967, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Malkin, S

    N. Malkin, S. Lahlou, T. Deleu, X. Ji, E. Hu, K. Everett, D. Zhang, and Y . Bengio. Gflownets and variational inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.00580, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Mimori and M

    T. Mimori and M. Hamada. Geophy: differentiable phylogenetic inference via geometric gradients of tree topologies. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Mnih and D

    A. Mnih and D. Rezende. Variational inference for monte carlo objectives. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2188–2196. PMLR, 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    H. N. Munro. Mammalian protein metabolism, volume 4. Elsevier, 2012

    2012

  17. [25]

    Nei and S

    M. Nei and S. Kumar. Molecular evolution and phylogenetics. Oxford university press, 2000

    2000

  18. [26]

    M. Newman. Networks. Oxford university press, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Paszke, S

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga, et al. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    F. P. Preparata and M. I. Shamos. Computational geometry: an introduction. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  21. [29]

    Ronquist, M

    F. Ronquist, M. Teslenko, P. Van Der Mark, D. L. Ayres, A. Darling, S. Höhna, B. Larget, L. Liu, M. A. Suchard, and J. P. Huelsenbeck. Mrbayes 3.2: efficient bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Systematic biology, 61(3):539–542, 2012

    2012

  22. [30]

    A. Y . Rossman, J. M. McKemy, R. A. Pardo-Schultheiss, and H.-J. Schroers. Molecular studies of the bionectriaceae using large subunit rdna sequences. Mycologia, 93(1):100–110, 2001

    2001

  23. [31]

    Saitou and M

    N. Saitou and M. Nei. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phyloge- netic trees. Molecular biology and evolution, 4(4):406–425, 1987

    1987

  24. [32]

    Shendure, S

    J. Shendure, S. Balasubramanian, G. M. Church, W. Gilbert, J. Rogers, J. A. Schloss, and R. H. Waterston. Dna sequencing at 40: past, present and future. Nature, 550(7676):345–353, 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    J. L. Steenwyk, Y . Li, X. Zhou, X.-X. Shen, and A. Rokas. Incongruence in the phylogenomics era. Nature Reviews Genetics, 24(12):834–850, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    S. Tavaré. Some probabilistic and statistical problems on the analysis of dna sequence. Lecture of Mathematics for Life Science, 17:57, 1986

    1986

  27. [35]

    Y . Wang, Y . Sun, Z. Liu, S. E. Sarma, M. M. Bronstein, and J. M. Solomon. Dynamic graph cnn for learning on point clouds. ACM Transactions on Graphics (tog), 38(5):1–12, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Xie and C

    T. Xie and C. Zhang. Artree: A deep autoregressive model for phylogenetic inference.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    W. Xie, P. O. Lewis, Y . Fan, L. Kuo, and M.-H. Chen. Improving marginal likelihood estimation for bayesian phylogenetic model selection. Systematic biology, 60(2):150–160, 2011

    2011

  30. [38]

    Yang and A

    Z. Yang and A. D. Yoder. Comparison of likelihood and bayesian methods for estimating divergence times using multiple gene loci and calibration points, with application to a radiation of cute-looking mouse lemur species. Systematic biology, 52(5):705–716, 2003

    2003

  31. [39]

    A. D. Yoder and Z. Yang. Divergence dates for malagasy lemurs estimated from multiple gene loci: geological and evolutionary context. Molecular Ecology, 13(4):757–773, 2004

    2004

  32. [40]

    Z. Zang, S. Li, D. Wu, G. Wang, K. Wang, L. Shang, B. Sun, H. Li, and S. Z. Li. Dlme: Deep local-flatness manifold embedding. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 576–592. Springer, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Z. Zang, H. Luo, K. Wang, P. Zhang, F. Wang, S. Z. Li, and Y . You. Diffaug: Enhance unsuper- vised contrastive learning with domain-knowledge-free diffusion-based data augmentation. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning

  34. [42]

    Z. Zang, Y . Xu, C. Duan, J. Wu, S. Z. Li, and Z. Lei. A review of artificial intelligence based biological-tree construction: Priorities, methods, applications and trends. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.04815, 2024. 12

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    C. Zhang. Improved variational bayesian phylogenetic inference with normalizing flows. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:18760–18771, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    C. Zhang. Learnable topological features for phylogenetic inference via graph neural networks. ArXiv, 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    Zhang and F

    C. Zhang and F. A. Matsen IV . Generalizing tree probability estimation via bayesian networks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  38. [46]

    Zhang and F

    C. Zhang and F. A. Matsen IV . Variational bayesian phylogenetic inference. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2018

    2018

  39. [47]

    Zhang and M

    N. Zhang and M. Blackwell. Molecular phylogeny of dogwood anthracnose fungus (discula destructiva) and the diaporthales. Mycologia, 93(2):355–365, 2001

    2001

  40. [48]

    M. Zhou, Z. Yan, E. Layne, N. Malkin, D. Zhang, M. Jain, M. Blanchette, and Y . Bengio. Phy- logfn: Phylogenetic inference with generative flow networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08774, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Bacteria

    Z. Zhou, Y . Ji, W. Li, P. Dutta, R. Davuluri, and H. Liu. Dnabert-2: Efficient foundation model and benchmark for multi-species genome. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.15006, 2023. 13 A Background A.1 Graph Structure Generation (GSG) Let G = (A, X) denote a graph, where A ∈ RN ×N i...

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.