Testing for Differences in Rates-Across-Sites Distributions in Phylogenetic Subtrees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has long been recognized that the rates of molecular evolution vary amongst sites in proteins. The usual model for rate heterogeneity assumes independent rate variation according to a rate distribution. In such models the rate at a site, although random, is assumed fixed throughout the evolutionary tree. Recent work by several groups has suggested that rates at sites often vary across subtrees of the larger tree as well as across sites. This phenomenon is not captured by most phylogenetic models but instead is more similar to the covarion model of Fitch and coworkers. In this article we present methods that can be useful in detecting whether different rates occur in two different subtrees of the larger tree and where these differences occur. Parametric bootstrapping and orthogonal regression methodologies are used to test for rate differences and to make statements about the general differences in the rates at sites. Confidence intervals based on the conditional distributions of rates at sites are then used to detect where the rate differences occur. Such methods will be helpful in studying the phylogenetic, structural, and functional bases of changes in evolutionary rates at sites, a phenomenon that has important consequences for deep phylogenetic inference.
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 | 0.029 | 0.173 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".