Comparison of Bayesian and Maximum Likelihood Bootstrap Measures of Phylogenetic Reliability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Owing to the exponential growth of genome databases, phylogenetic trees are now widely used to test a variety of evolutionary hypotheses. Nevertheless, computation time burden limits the application of methods such as maximum likelihood nonparametric bootstrap to assess reliability of evolutionary trees. As an alternative, the much faster Bayesian inference of phylogeny, which expresses branch support as posterior probabilities, has been introduced. However, marked discrepancies exist between nonparametric bootstrap proportions and Bayesian posterior probabilities, leading to difficulties in the interpretation of sometimes strongly conflicting results. As an attempt to reconcile these two indices of node reliability, we apply the nonparametric bootstrap resampling procedure to the Bayesian approach. The correlation between posterior probabilities, bootstrap maximum likelihood percentages, and bootstrapped posterior probabilities was studied for eight highly diverse empirical data sets and were also investigated using experimental simulation. Our results show that the relation between posterior probabilities and bootstrapped maximum likelihood percentages is highly variable but that very strong correlations always exist when Bayesian node support is estimated on bootstrapped character matrices. Moreover, simulations corroborate empirical observations in suggesting that, being more conservative, the bootstrap approach might be less prone to strongly supporting a false phylogenetic hypothesis. Thus, apparent conflicts in topology recovered by the Bayesian approach were reduced after bootstrapping. Both posterior probabilities and bootstrap supports are of great interest to phylogeny as potential upper and lower bounds of node reliability, but they are surely not interchangeable and cannot be directly compared.
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 | 0.037 | 0.256 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".