Inferring Phylogeny Despite Incomplete Lineage Sorting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is now well known that incomplete lineage sorting can cause serious difficulties for phylogenetic inference, but little attention has been paid to methods that attempt to overcome these difficulties by explicitly considering the processes that produce them. Here we explore approaches to phylogenetic inference designed to consider retention and sorting of ancestral polymorphism. We examine how the reconstructability of a species (or population) phylogeny is affected by (a) the number of loci used to estimate the phylogeny and (b) the number of individuals sampled per species. Even in difficult cases with considerable incomplete lineage sorting (times between divergences less than 1 N(e) generations), we found the reconstructed species trees matched the "true" species trees in at least three out of five partitions, as long as a reasonable number of individuals per species were sampled. We also studied the tradeoff between sampling more loci versus more individuals. Although increasing the number of loci gives more accurate trees for a given sampling effort with deeper species trees (e.g., total depth of 10 N(e) generations), sampling more individuals often gives better results than sampling more loci with shallower species trees (e.g., depth = 1 N(e)). Taken together, these results demonstrate that gene sequences retain enough signal to achieve an accurate estimate of phylogeny despite widespread incomplete lineage sorting. Continued improvement in our methods to reconstruct phylogeny near the species level will require a shift to a compound model that considers not only nucleotide or character state substitutions, but also the population genetics processes of lineage sorting. [Coalescence; divergence; population; speciation.].
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 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".