Computing Bayes Factors Using Thermodynamic Integration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Bayesian paradigm, a common method for comparing two models is to compute the Bayes factor, defined as the ratio of their respective marginal likelihoods. In recent phylogenetic works, the numerical evaluation of marginal likelihoods has often been performed using the harmonic mean estimation procedure. In the present article, we propose to employ another method, based on an analogy with statistical physics, called thermodynamic integration. We describe the method, propose an implementation, and show on two analytical examples that this numerical method yields reliable estimates. In contrast, the harmonic mean estimator leads to a strong overestimation of the marginal likelihood, which is all the more pronounced as the model is higher dimensional. As a result, the harmonic mean estimator systematically favors more parameter-rich models, an artefact that might explain some recent puzzling observations, based on harmonic mean estimates, suggesting that Bayes factors tend to overscore complex models. Finally, we apply our method to the comparison of several alternative models of amino-acid replacement. We confirm our previous observations, indicating that modeling pattern heterogeneity across sites tends to yield better models than standard empirical matrices.
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 | 0.011 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".