Confidence Regions and Hypothesis Tests for Topologies Using Generalized Least Squares
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A confidence region for topologies is a data-dependent set of topologies that, with high probability, can be expected to contain the true topology. Because of the connection between confidence regions and hypothesis tests, implicitly or explicitly, the construction of confidence regions for topologies is a component of many phylogenetic studies. Existing methods for constructing confidence regions, however, often give conflicting results. The Shimodaira-Hasegawa test seems too conservative, including too many topologies, whereas the other commonly used method, the Swofford-Olsen-Waddell-Hillis test, tends to give confidence regions with too few topologies. Confidence regions are constructed here based on a generalized least squares test statistic. The methodology described is computationally inexpensive and broadly applicable to maximum likelihood distances. Assuming the model used to construct the distances is correct, the coverage probabilities are correct with large numbers of sites.
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 | 0.058 | 0.340 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".