Summarizing a Posterior Distribution of Trees Using Agreement Subtrees
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bayesian inference of phylogeny is unique among phylogenetic reconstruction methods in that it produces a posterior distribution of trees rather than a point estimate of the best tree. The most common way to summarize this distribution is to report the majority-rule consensus tree annotated with the marginal posterior probabilities of each partition. Reporting a single tree discards information contained in the full underlying distribution and reduces the Bayesian analysis to simply another method for finding a point estimate of the tree. Even when a point estimate of the phylogeny is desired, the majority-rule consensus tree is only one possible method, and there may be others that are more appropriate for the given data set and application. We present a method for summarizing the distribution of trees that is based on identifying agreement subtrees that are frequently present in the posterior distribution. This method provides fully resolved binary trees for subsets of taxa with high marginal posterior probability on the entire tree and includes additional information about the spread of the distribution.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it