Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Ruoyi Cai

dblp:292/9943 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
—ORCID · unresolved

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 67% Computational science and engineering · 33%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Computational science and engineering
model selection
0.512021
Assessing the fit of the multi-species network coalescent to multi-locus data · Bioinform. 2021
Bioinformatics and computational biology
phylogenetics
0.512021
Assessing the fit of the multi-species network coalescent to multi-locus data · Bioinform. 2021
Bioinformatics and computational biology › phylogenetics › phylogenetic network
phylogenetic network inference
0.512021
Assessing the fit of the multi-species network coalescent to multi-locus data · Bioinform. 2021

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

multi-species coalescent · 0.5goodness-of-fit test · 0.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 Assessing the fit of the multi-species network coalescent to multi-locus data
abstract
MOTIVATION: With growing genome-wide molecular datasets from next-generation sequencing, phylogenetic networks can be estimated using a variety of approaches. These phylogenetic networks include events like hybridization, gene flow or horizontal gene transfer explicitly. However, the most accurate network inference methods are computationally heavy. Methods that scale to larger datasets do not calculate a full likelihood, such that traditional likelihood-based tools for model selection are not applicable to decide how many past hybridization events best fit the data. We propose here a goodness-of-fit test to quantify the fit between data observed from genome-wide multi-locus data, and patterns expected under the multi-species coalescent model on a candidate phylogenetic network. RESULTS: We identified weaknesses in the previously proposed TICR test, and proposed corrections. The performance of our new test was validated by simulations on real-world phylogenetic networks. Our test provides one of the first rigorous tools for model selection, to select the adequate network complexity for the data at hand. The test can also work for identifying poorly inferred areas on a network. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Software for the goodness-of-fit test is available as a Julia package at https://github.com/cecileane/QuartetNetworkGoodnessFit.jl. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
Ruoyi Cai, Cécile Ané
Bioinform.1