Cophylogeny simulators are not interchangeable: similarities, differences and structural biases in synthetic host-symbiont
Di Palma, G.; Matias, C.; Sinaimeri, B.
Show abstract
Synthetic data are becoming increasingly important for computational studies of cophylogeny, including machine learning inference, benchmarking, and method testing. Several generators have been proposed to produce such data, but each relies on different assumptions about host-symbiont coevolution. These assumptions are often implicit and rarely examined, even though results can depend strongly on the synthetic model being used. In this article, we present a systematic structural analysis of representative cophylogeny generators under controlled scenarios. The goal is to make their assumptions explicit and to understand how these choices shape the synthetic data they produce as well as the conclusions that may be drawn from them.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Practical Identifiability in the Frame of Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models: the Example of the in vitro Erythropoiesis 93%
- Unsupervised modeling of mutational landscapes of adeno-associated viruses viability 92%
- BiGPICC: a graph-based approach to identifying carcinogenic gene combinations from mutation data 92%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- PRIEST - Predicting viral mutations with immune escape capability of SARS-CoV-2 using temporal evolutionary information 92%
- Synthetic observations from deep generative models and binary omics data with limited sample size 92%
- Evaluation of out-of-distribution detection methods for data shifts in single-cell transcriptomics 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.