Accelerated Likelihood Surface Exploration: The Likelihood Ratchet
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
The existence of multiple likelihood maxima necessitates algorithms that explore a large part of the tree space. However, because of computational constraints, stepwise addition-based tree-searching methods do not allow for this exploration in reasonable time. Here, I present an algorithm that increases the speed at which the likelihood landscape can be explored. The iterative algorithm combines the computational speed of distance-based tree construction methods to arrive at approximations of the global optimum with the accuracy of optimality criterion based branch-swapping methods to improve on the result of the starting tree. The algorithm moves between local optima by iteratively perturbing the tree landscape through a process of reweighting randomly drawn samples of the underlying sequence data set. Tests on simulated and real data sets demonstrated that the optimal solution obtained using stepwise addition-based heuristic searches was found faster using the algorithm presented here. Tests on a previously published data set that established the presence of tree islands under maximum likelihood demonstrated that the algorithm identifies the same tree islands in a shorter amount of time than that needed using stepwise addition. The algorithm can be readily applied using standard software for 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.
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