Accounting for Gene Rate Heterogeneity in Phylogenetic Inference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, phylogenetic analyses over many genes combine data into a contiguous block. Under this concatenated model, all genes are assumed to evolve at the same rate. However, it is clear that genes evolve at very different rates and that accounting for this rate heterogeneity is important if we are to accurately infer phylogenies from heterogeneous multigene data sets. There remain open questions regarding how best to incorporate gene rate parameters into phylogenetic models and which properties of real data correlate with improved fit over the concatenated model. In this study, two methods of accounting for gene rate heterogeneity are compared: the n-parameter method, which allows for each of the n gene partitions to have a gene rate parameter, and the alpha-parameter method, which fits a distribution to the gene rates. Results demonstrate that the n-parameter method is both computationally faster and in general provides a better fit over the concatenated model than the alpha-parameter method. Furthermore, improved model fit over the concatenated model is highly correlated with the presence of a gene with a slow relative rate of evolution.
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 | 0.036 | 0.149 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".