First-Order Correct Bootstrap Support Adjustments for Splits that Allow Hypothesis Testing When Using Maximum Likelihood Estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most frequent measure of phylogenetic uncertainty for splits is bootstrap support. Although large bootstrap support intuitively suggests that a split in a tree is well supported, it has not been clear how large bootstrap support needs to be to conclude that there is significant evidence that a hypothesized split is present. Indeed, recent work has shown that bootstrap support is not first-order correct and thus cannot be directly used for hypothesis testing. We present methods that adjust bootstrap support values in a maximum likelihood (ML) setting so that they have an interpretation corresponding to P values in conventional hypothesis testing; for instance, adjusted bootstrap support larger than 95% occurs only 5% of the time if the split is not present. Through examples and simulation settings, it is found that adjustments always increase the level of support. We also find that the nature of the adjustment is fairly constant across parameter settings. Finally, we consider adjustments that take into account the data-dependent nature of many hypotheses about splits: the hypothesis that they are present is being tested because they are in the tree estimated through ML. Here, in contrast, we find that bootstrap probability often needs to be adjusted downwards.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".