Estimation of Rates-Across-Sites Distributions in Phylogenetic Substitution Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous work has shown that it is often essential to account for the variation in rates at different sites in phylogenetic models in order to avoid phylogenetic artifacts such as long branch attraction. In most current models, the gamma distribution is used for the rates-across-sites distributions and is implemented as an equal-probability discrete gamma. In this article, we introduce discrete distribution estimates with large numbers of equally spaced rate categories allowing us to investigate the appropriateness of the gamma model. With large numbers of rate categories, these discrete estimates are flexible enough to approximate the shape of almost any distribution. Likelihood ratio statistical tests and a nonparametric bootstrap confidence-bound estimation procedure based on the discrete estimates are presented that can be used to test the fit of a parametric family. We applied the methodology to several different protein data sets, and found that although the gamma model often provides a good parametric model for this type of data, rate estimates from an equal-probability discrete gamma model with a small number of categories will tend to underestimate the largest rates. In cases when the gamma model assumption is in doubt, rate estimates coming from the discrete rate distribution estimate with a large number of rate categories provide a robust alternative to gamma estimates. An alternative implementation of the gamma distribution is proposed that, for equal numbers of rate categories, is computationally more efficient during optimization than the standard gamma implementation and can provide more accurate estimates of site rates.
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 | 0.025 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".