pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.25584 · v1 · pith:WOST6EHKnew · submitted 2026-06-24 · 🧬 q-bio.PE

ML-MAWS: Alignment-Free Maximum Likelihood Phylogeny Estimation Using Minimal Absent Words

Papri Saha , Sudipta Kumar Das , Anonnya Sarkar and , Md. Manzurul Hasan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 19:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.PE
keywords alignment-free phylogenyminimal absent wordsmaximum likelihoodLewis Mkv modelbinary character matrixbacterial genomesviral genomesphylogenetic signal
0
0 comments X

The pith

Encoding minimal absent words as binary characters enables maximum likelihood tree estimation on unaligned genomes.

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

The paper presents ML-MAWS, which turns minimal absent words extracted from genomes into a binary presence-absence matrix and then runs maximum likelihood inference under the Lewis Mkv model with ascertainment correction. Three filtering steps—strand-aware combination of forward and reverse-complement words, entropy maximization across lengths, and retention of only parsimony-informative columns—aim to preserve phylogenetic signal in this coarse encoding. On fourteen benchmark collections spanning bacteria, mitochondria, viruses and simulated sequences, the resulting trees recover splits close to published reference topologies while also returning per-branch bootstrap-style support and a full probabilistic model. This combination is presented as an advance over distance-only alignment-free methods that lack statistical machinery. The approach therefore claims both competitive topological accuracy and the added benefit of rigorous inference without requiring multiple sequence alignment.

Core claim

ML-MAWS recovers near-correct splits on bacterial, mitochondrial, viral and simulated genome benchmarks by encoding minimal absent words as a binary character matrix and estimating trees under the Lewis Mkv model with ascertainment bias correction; the method supplies per-branch statistical support and a probabilistic framework that distance-based alignment-free approaches lack.

What carries the argument

Binary presence/absence matrix of minimal absent words, filtered by strand awareness, entropy selection across lengths, and parsimony-informative capping, then analysed under the Lewis Mkv model with ascertainment bias correction.

If this is right

  • Trees produced by ML-MAWS carry per-branch statistical support values unavailable from distance-only alignment-free methods.
  • The method supplies a full probabilistic model that can be extended to model testing or ancestral-state reconstruction.
  • Computation remains linear in sequence length because minimal absent words are extracted via suffix-automaton traversal.
  • The same binary matrix can be re-analysed under alternative substitution models once the Lewis Mkv baseline is established.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the input is a character matrix rather than pairwise distances, the framework could be combined with existing coalescent or multispecies models that operate on character data.
  • The entropy-based length selection step might generalise to other k-mer or word-based features beyond minimal absent words.
  • If the binary signal proves robust, the approach could be applied to very large metagenomic assemblies where alignment is impractical.

Load-bearing premise

The binary presence or absence of minimal absent words still carries enough phylogenetic signal to produce trees whose topological accuracy matches or exceeds that of continuous distance methods after the described filtering.

What would settle it

A new benchmark collection in which the Robinson-Foulds or matching-split distance of ML-MAWS trees to the reference is substantially larger than that of published continuous distance baselines on the same sequences.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25584 by Anonnya Sarkar and, Md. Manzurul Hasan, Papri Saha, Sudipta Kumar Das.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Workflow diagram of the ML-MAWS pipeline. Genomic sequences are processed through suffix automaton–based MAW extraction with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: ML-MAWS phylogenetic tree for the Fish mtDNA dataset (25 species). Branch labels indicate bootstrap support (%). The tree recovers major [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Normalized Robinson–Foulds distance (nRF) across benchmark datasets and methods. Lower values indicate better topological accuracy. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Matching Split Distance (MSD) across datasets. MSD provides partial credit for near-correct bipartitions, offering a more nuanced view of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ablation study comparing strand-aware (IQ-TREE) and no-strand variants across datasets: (a) nRF, (b) nQD, and (c) bootstrap support. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Effect of increasing horizontal gene transfer (HGT) on nRF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Log-scale comparison of (a) running time and (b) peak memory across all methods. ML-MAWS trades computational resources for statistical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Alignment-free methods in phylogenetic tree construction have major benefits in computational efficiency over alignment-based methods, but most sacrifice sequence information to pairwise distances, losing the statistical power of maximum likelihood (ML) inference. We describe ML-MAWS, an algorithm that fills this gap by encoding Minimal Absent Words (MAWs) as a binary presence/absence character matrix and estimating using an ML tree under the Lewis Mkv model using ascertainment bias correction. MAWs are obtained in linear time through the traversal of a suffix automaton. Three new elements contribute to the phylogenetic signal: strand-aware filtering combines forward and reverse complement MAW sets to eliminate compositional artifacts; entropy-based multi-length selection uses Shannon entropy maximization to select the most informative lengths of MAWs; and parsimony-informative character capping only retains the most discriminative columns. We tested ML-MAWS on 14 benchmark datasets of bacterial, mitochondrial, viral, and simulated genomes with normalized Robinson Foulds distances and matching split distances, against published reference trees. The results show that the coarse binary encoding of MAWs can lead to higher topological errors than continuous-valued distance baselines, while ML-MAWS can successfully recover near-correct splits and can uniquely provide per-branch statistical confidence as well as a rigorous probabilistic framework that is lacking in these methods.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes ML-MAWS, an alignment-free phylogenetic method that extracts minimal absent words (MAWs) in linear time via suffix automata, encodes them as a binary presence/absence character matrix after strand-aware filtering, entropy-based length selection, and parsimony capping, and infers trees by maximum likelihood under the Lewis Mkv model with ascertainment bias correction. On 14 bacterial, mitochondrial, viral, and simulated datasets, it reports higher normalized Robinson-Foulds and matching-split distances than continuous distance baselines yet claims recovery of near-correct splits together with per-branch statistical supports and a probabilistic framework unavailable to distance methods.

Significance. If the central modeling assumptions hold, the work would supply the first explicit maximum-likelihood treatment of alignment-free data, a genuine methodological advance over purely distance-based approaches. The linear-time MAW extraction and the three filtering heuristics are computationally attractive and directly address known compositional artifacts. The explicit acknowledgment that topological accuracy remains inferior to distance baselines is a strength of the presentation, as it correctly frames the contribution around the availability of calibrated supports rather than raw accuracy.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that ML-MAWS 'can successfully recover near-correct splits' while simultaneously reporting higher topological error than distance baselines is load-bearing for the central contribution; the manuscript must define a quantitative threshold (e.g., normalized RF < 0.05 or matching-split distance < 0.10) and report per-dataset values to substantiate 'near-correct' rather than leaving the interpretation to the reader.
  2. [Methods] Methods (Lewis Mkv application and filtering pipeline): the model treats MAW columns as conditionally independent given the tree and branch lengths, yet each MAW is a deterministic function of the same input string; a single substitution can create or destroy multiple MAWs. The strand-aware union, entropy maximization, and parsimony capping steps are described but no diagnostic (e.g., pairwise character correlation matrix or simulation under a sequence evolution model) is provided to show that residual dependence is negligible. Because the per-branch supports and likelihood comparisons rest on this independence assumption, its violation directly undermines the claimed 'rigorous probabilistic framework'.
minor comments (2)
  1. The 14 benchmark datasets are referenced only generically; explicit accession numbers, sequence lengths, and reference tree sources should be tabulated to permit exact reproduction.
  2. Figure legends should state the exact normalization used for Robinson-Foulds distances and whether the reported values are means or medians across replicates.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. We address each major comment below and commit to revisions that directly respond to the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that ML-MAWS 'can successfully recover near-correct splits' while simultaneously reporting higher topological error than distance baselines is load-bearing for the central contribution; the manuscript must define a quantitative threshold (e.g., normalized RF < 0.05 or matching-split distance < 0.10) and report per-dataset values to substantiate 'near-correct' rather than leaving the interpretation to the reader.

    Authors: We agree that the phrase 'near-correct splits' requires a quantitative definition to be interpretable. In the revised manuscript we will explicitly define 'near-correct' using the thresholds suggested (normalized RF < 0.05 or matching-split distance < 0.10) and add a table (or supplementary table) that reports the exact normalized RF and matching-split distances for each of the 14 datasets. The abstract will be updated to reference these concrete values rather than the current qualitative statement. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods (Lewis Mkv application and filtering pipeline): the model treats MAW columns as conditionally independent given the tree and branch lengths, yet each MAW is a deterministic function of the same input string; a single substitution can create or destroy multiple MAWs. The strand-aware union, entropy maximization, and parsimony capping steps are described but no diagnostic (e.g., pairwise character correlation matrix or simulation under a sequence evolution model) is provided to show that residual dependence is negligible. Because the per-branch supports and likelihood comparisons rest on this independence assumption, its violation directly undermines the claimed 'rigorous probabilistic framework'.

    Authors: The referee correctly notes that MAWs are not strictly independent. The Lewis Mkv model is applied here as a practical approximation for binary characters, analogous to its use in other morphological or presence/absence datasets; the three filtering steps are intended to mitigate redundancy. No explicit diagnostic for residual dependence appears in the submitted manuscript. In revision we will add (i) a pairwise correlation matrix computed on the final character matrices of the real datasets and (ii) a small simulation study under a sequence evolution model to quantify the degree of dependence and its influence on support values. Results and any resulting caveats will be reported. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on external standards

full rationale

The paper encodes MAWs via standard suffix automata (linear-time traversal, no author-specific prior), applies the published Lewis Mkv model with ascertainment correction, and uses explicitly described filtering heuristics (strand-aware union, entropy maximization, parsimony capping). No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations reduce the reported trees, likelihoods, or supports to quantities defined by the authors' own inputs or prior work. Evaluation uses external benchmark datasets and reference trees. The central claim therefore remains self-contained against independent components.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that MAW presence/absence forms a valid character matrix for the Lewis Mkv model and that the three filtering heuristics preserve phylogenetic signal. No free parameters are explicitly named in the abstract. No new entities are postulated.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Suffix automaton traversal yields all minimal absent words in linear time
    Invoked in the description of MAW extraction; standard result in string algorithms.
  • domain assumption Lewis Mkv model with ascertainment bias correction is appropriate for binary character matrices derived from sequence features
    Core modeling choice stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5770 in / 1470 out tokens · 21341 ms · 2026-06-25T19:28:02.894303+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach,

    J. Felsenstein, “Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach,”Journal of Molecular Evolution, vol. 17, pp. 368–376, 1981

    1981

  2. [2]

    Alignment-free sequence analysis and applications

    J. Ren, X. Bai, Y. Y. Lu, K. Tang, Y. Wang, G. Reinert, and F. Sun, “Alignment-free sequence analysis and applications.” Annual review of biomedical data science, vol. 1, pp. 93–114, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ 421339791c9565581f93e395ea45fbe843af0c28

    2018

  3. [3]

    Benchmarking of alignment-free sequence comparison methods,

    A. Zielezinski, H. Z. Girgis, G. Bernard, C.-A. Leimeister, K. Tang, T. Dencker, A. Lau, S. R ¨ohling, J. Choi, M. Waterman, M. Comin, S.-H. Kim, S. Vinga, J. S. Almeida, C. Chan, B. T. James, F. Sun, B. Morgenstern, and W. Karłowski, “Benchmarking of alignment-free sequence comparison methods,”Genome Biology, vol. 20, p. null, 2019. [Online]. Available: ...

    2019

  4. [4]

    Alignment-free sequence comparison: benefits, applications, and tools,

    A. Zielezinski, S. Vinga, J. S. Almeida, and W. Karłowski, “Alignment-free sequence comparison: benefits, applications, and tools,”Genome Biology, vol. 18, p. null, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ 5e3bc176613e72dac2c9665263873032e6a9bee0

    2017

  5. [5]

    New developments of alignment-free sequence comparison: measures, statistics and next-generation sequencing,

    K. Song, J. J. Ren, G. Reinert, M. Deng, M. Waterman, and F. Sun, “New developments of alignment-free sequence comparison: measures, statistics and next-generation sequencing,” Briefings in bioinformatics, vol. 15 3, pp. 343–53, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ 62fe192323c5b631d95cbb5f8aa0ce844e2d03ed

    2014

  6. [6]

    Alignment-free microbial phylogenomics under scenarios of sequence divergence, genome rearrangement and lateral genetic transfer,

    G. Bernard, C. Chan, and M. Ragan, “Alignment-free microbial phylogenomics under scenarios of sequence divergence, genome rearrangement and lateral genetic transfer,”Scientific Reports, vol. 6, p. null, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.semanticscholar. org/paper/d55ca5e8ef293785fc7d9e71bfba79412bab5084

    2016

  7. [7]

    Alignment-free inference of hierarchical and reticulate phylogenomic relationships,

    G. Bernard, C. Chan, Y. ban Chan, X.-Y. Chua, Y. Cong, J. Hogan, S. Maetschke, and M. Ragan, “Alignment-free inference of hierarchical and reticulate phylogenomic relationships,” Briefings in Bioinformatics, vol. 20, pp. 426 – 435, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ 89fd37ecb140005a9a37c5d8528b8584742f13b6

    2017

  8. [8]

    Sequence comparison without alignment: The spam approaches,

    B. Morgenstern, “Sequence comparison without alignment: The spam approaches,”bioRxiv, vol. null, p. null, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ e86c211c797a9c22a49c5777bc8cdc4fa7c34b8b

    2019

  9. [9]

    Fast alignment-free sequence comparison using spaced-word frequencies,

    C.-A. Leimeister, M. Boden, S. Horwege, S. Lindner, and B. Morgenstern, “Fast alignment-free sequence comparison using spaced-word frequencies,”Bioinformatics, vol. 30, pp. 1991 – 1999, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.semanticscholar.org/ paper/6238641716d281d4e5e53fcfbbea3a8bbc87c079

    work page arXiv 1991

  10. [10]

    Cafe: accelerated alignment-free sequence analysis,

    Y. Y. Lu, K. Tang, J. J. Ren, J. Fuhrman, M. Waterman, and F. Sun, “Cafe: accelerated alignment-free sequence analysis,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 45, pp. W554 – W559, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ 31165c3919dd0eaff05844392eeea35f459d802b

    2017

  11. [11]

    k-mer similarity, networks of microbial genomes, and taxonomic rank,

    G. Bernard, P . Greenfield, M. Ragan, and C. Chan, “k-mer similarity, networks of microbial genomes, and taxonomic rank,”mSystems, vol. 3, p. null, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ ad71d87a0b67ec457a549cb8c521e205ec83ad23

    2017

  12. [12]

    A survey and evaluations of histogram-based statistics in alignment-free sequence comparison,

    B. B. Luczak, B. T. James, and H. Z. Girgis, “A survey and evaluations of histogram-based statistics in alignment-free sequence comparison,”Briefings in Bioinformatics, vol. 20, pp. 1222 – 1237, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.semanticscholar.org/ paper/135347386198fbdb05e2545ec9a2ae2ea87850fa

    work page arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    Fast and accurate phylogeny reconstruction using filtered spaced-word matches,

    C.-A. Leimeister, S. Sohrabi-Jahromi, and B. Morgenstern, “Fast and accurate phylogeny reconstruction using filtered spaced-word matches,”Bioinformatics, vol. 33, pp. 971 – 979, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ 02690b5dc7cc539b717ade150bc290e7cedd2f96

    2017

  14. [14]

    Estimating evolutionary distances between genomic sequences from spaced-word matches,

    B. Morgenstern, B. Zhu, S. Horwege, and C.-A. Leimeister, “Estimating evolutionary distances between genomic sequences from spaced-word matches,”Algorithms for Molecular Biology : AMB, vol. 10, p. null, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ 17af09796b83ee525fabceef3df8630499b3c8d9

    2015

  15. [15]

    rasbhari: Optimizing spaced seeds for database searching, read mapping and alignment-free sequence comparison,

    L. Hahn, C.-A. Leimeister, and B. Morgenstern, “rasbhari: Optimizing spaced seeds for database searching, read mapping and alignment-free sequence comparison,”PLoS Computational Biology, vol. 12, p. null, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ 631cafc87ea0648dc31a2a8c594be3750e95229d

    2015

  16. [16]

    Phylogeny reconstruction based on the length distribution of k-mismatch common substrings,

    B. Morgenstern, S. Sch ¨obel, and C.-A. Leimeister, “Phylogeny reconstruction based on the length distribution of k-mismatch common substrings,”Algorithms for Molecular Biology : AMB, vol. 12, p. null, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.semanticscholar. org/paper/0649c9e8ba3997efb4db5b68dd2bcf27a5bd78fc

    2017

  17. [17]

    Estimating phylogenetic distances between genomic sequences based on the length distribution of k-mismatch common substrings,

    B. Morgenstern, S. Schobel, and C.-A. Leimeister, “Estimating phylogenetic distances between genomic sequences based on the length distribution of k-mismatch common substrings,”arXiv: Populations and Evolution, p. null, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ 8736556929e467a4ff9f39c55df36bb8eb5056ef

    2017

  18. [18]

    kmacs: the k-mismatch average common substring approach to alignment-free sequence comparison,

    C.-A. Leimeister and B. Morgenstern, “kmacs: the k-mismatch average common substring approach to alignment-free sequence comparison,”Bioinformatics, vol. 30, pp. 2000 – 2008, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ f0bfa9bb4b6e1e1ffae11fa59d6fafc53e911a94

    2000

  19. [19]

    Skmer: assembly-free and alignment-free sample identification using genome skims,

    S. Sarmashghi, K. Bohmann, M. T. P . Gilbert, V . Bafna, and S. Mirarab, “Skmer: assembly-free and alignment-free sample identification using genome skims,”Genome Biology, vol. 20, p. null, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.semanticscholar.org/ paper/5e4425db3c8f0113054ce40812d0408afab1219e

    2019

  20. [20]

    Phylonium: fast estimation of evolutionary distances from large samples of similar genomes,

    F. Kl ¨otzl and B. Haubold, “Phylonium: fast estimation of evolutionary distances from large samples of similar genomes,”Bioinformatics, vol. 36, pp. 2040 – 2046, 2019. 11 [Online]. Available: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ 262467776dccab82fd1e751e22805cf4fb475760

    2040

  21. [21]

    Using minimal absent words to build phylogeny,

    S. Chairungsee and M. Crochemore, “Using minimal absent words to build phylogeny,”Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 450, pp. 109–116, 2012

    2012

  22. [22]

    Crochemore, C

    M. Crochemore, C. Hancart, and T. Lecroq,Algorithms on Strings. Cambridge University Press, 2007

    2007

  23. [23]

    Cd-maws: An alignment-free phylogeny estimation method using cosine distance on minimal absent word sets,

    N. Anjum, R. L. Nabil, R. I. Rafi, M. S. Bayzid, and M. S. Rahman, “Cd-maws: An alignment-free phylogeny estimation method using cosine distance on minimal absent word sets,”IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, vol. 20, pp. 196–205, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.semanticscholar. org/paper/4b6d6ccaa25c0e7e6aa916720fad...

    2021

  24. [24]

    An efficient implementation of cosine distance on minimal absent word sets using suffix automata,

    M. T. Ehsan, S. S. B. Mosaddek, and M. S. Rahman, “An efficient implementation of cosine distance on minimal absent word sets using suffix automata,” inProc. WALCOM: Algorithms and Computation. Springer, 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //github.com/TamimEhsan/cd-maws-sa

    2025

  25. [25]

    An alignment-free method for phylogeny estimation using maximum likelihood,

    T. Zahin, M. H. Abrar, M. Jewel, T. Tasnim, M. S. Bayzid, and A. Rahman, “An alignment-free method for phylogeny estimation using maximum likelihood,”BMC Bioinformatics, vol. 26, p. null, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.semanticscholar.org/ paper/33eafe7fe139c1ef0261ee0ca778c162a8db34f0

    2019

  26. [26]

    RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies,

    A. Stamatakis, “RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies,”Bioinformatics, vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 1312–1313, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://github. com/stamatak/standard-RAxML

    2014

  27. [27]

    Sensitivity of a frequency-based alignment-free approach for phylogeny rreconstruction

    Y. Hrytsenko, N. M. Daniels, and R. Schwartz, “Sensitivity of a frequency-based alignment-free approach for phylogeny rreconstruction.” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ 30af5c034e2b3d417538793f3e6e281857a424de

    2021

  28. [28]

    A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data,

    P . O. Lewis, “A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data,”Systematic Biology, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 913–925, 2001

    2001

  29. [29]

    Comparison of phylogenetic trees,

    D. F. Robinson and L. R. Foulds, “Comparison of phylogenetic trees,”Mathematical Biosciences, vol. 53, no. 1–2, pp. 131–147, 1981

    1981

  30. [30]

    The smallest automaton recognizing the subwords of a text,

    A. Blumer, J. Blumer, A. Ehrenfeucht, D. Haussler, and R. McConnell, “The smallest automaton recognizing the subwords of a text,”Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 40, pp. 31–55, 1985

    1985

  31. [31]

    IQ-TREE 2: New models and efficient methods for phylogenetic inference in the genomic era,

    B. Q. Minh, H. A. Schmidt, O. Chernomor, D. Schrempf, M. D. Woodhams, A. von Haeseler, and R. Lanfear, “IQ-TREE 2: New models and efficient methods for phylogenetic inference in the genomic era,”Molecular Biology and Evolution, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1530–1534, 2020. [Online]. Available: http://www.iqtree.org/

    2020

  32. [32]

    ModelFinder: Fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates,

    S. Kalyaanamoorthy, B. Q. Minh, T. K. F. Wong, A. von Haeseler, and L. S. Jermiin, “ModelFinder: Fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates,”Nature Methods, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 587–589, 2017

    2017

  33. [33]

    UFBoot2: Improving the ultrafast bootstrap approximation,

    D. T. Hoang, O. Chernomor, A. von Haeseler, B. Q. Minh, and L. S. Vinh, “UFBoot2: Improving the ultrafast bootstrap approximation,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 518–522, 2018

    2018

  34. [34]

    Scientific Reports14(1), 23053 (2024)

    Y. Li, L. He, R. L. He, and S. S.-T. Yau, “A novel fast vector method for genetic sequence comparison,”Scientific Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 12226, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598- 017-12493-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598- 2017

  35. [35]

    DendroPy: a Python library for phylogenetic computing,

    J. Sukumaran and M. T. Holder, “DendroPy: a Python library for phylogenetic computing,”Bioinformatics, vol. 26, no. 12, pp. 1569–1571, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://dendropy.org Papri Sahais a graduate student currently pursuing a Master of Science in Computer Science (Intelligent Systems) at the American International University-Bangladesh (AIUB), D...

    2010