Accounting for Gene Rate Heterogeneity in Phylogenetic Inference
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
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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