Improving phylogenetic regression under complex evolutionary models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phylogenetic Generalized Least Square (PGLS) is the tool of choice among phylogenetic comparative methods to measure the correlation between species features such as morphological and life-history traits or niche characteristics. In its usual form, it assumes that the residual variation follows a homogenous model of evolution across the branches of the phylogenetic tree. Since a homogenous model of evolution is unlikely to be realistic in nature, we explored the robustness of the phylogenetic regression when this assumption is violated. We did so by simulating a set of traits under various heterogeneous models of evolution, and evaluating the statistical performance (type I error [the percentage of tests based on samples that incorrectly rejected a true null hypothesis] and power [the percentage of tests that correctly rejected a false null hypothesis]) of classical phylogenetic regression. We found that PGLS has good power but unacceptable type I error rates. This finding is important since this method has been increasingly used in comparative analyses over the last decade. To address this issue, we propose a simple solution based on transforming the underlying variance-covariance matrix to adjust for model heterogeneity within PGLS. We suggest that heterogeneous rates of evolution might be particularly prevalent in large phylogenetic trees, while most current approaches assume a homogenous rate of evolution. Our analysis demonstrates that overlooking rate heterogeneity can result in inflated type I errors, thus misleading comparative analyses. We show that it is possible to correct for this bias even when the underlying model of evolution is not known a priori.
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 | 0.024 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".