How Robust Are "Isolation with Migration" Analyses to Violations of the IM Model? A Simulation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methods developed over the past decade have made it possible to estimate molecular demographic parameters such as effective population size, divergence time, and gene flow with unprecedented accuracy and precision. However, they make simplifying assumptions about certain aspects of the species' histories and the nature of the genetic data, and it is not clear how robust they are to violations of these assumptions. Here, we use simulated data sets to examine the effects of a number of violations of the "Isolation with Migration" (IM) model, including intralocus recombination, population structure, gene flow from an unsampled species, linkage among loci, and divergent selection, on demographic parameter estimates made using the program IMA. We also examine the effect of having data that fit a nucleotide substitution model other than the two relatively simple models available in IMA. We find that IMA estimates are generally quite robust to small to moderate violations of the IM model assumptions, comparable with what is often encountered in real-world scenarios. In particular, population structure within species, a condition encountered to some degree in virtually all species, has little effect on parameter estimates even for fairly high levels of structure. Likewise, most parameter estimates are robust to significant levels of recombination when data sets are pared down to apparently nonrecombining blocks, although substantial bias is introduced to several estimates when the entire data set with recombination is included. In contrast, a poor fit to the nucleotide substitution model can result in an increased error rate, in some cases due to a predictable bias and in other cases due to an increase in variance in parameter estimates among data sets simulated under the same conditions.
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 | 0.065 | 0.295 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".