Conditional Approximate Bayesian Computation: A New Approach for Across-Site Dependency in High-Dimensional Mutation–Selection Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key question in molecular evolutionary biology concerns the relative roles of mutation and selection in shaping genomic data. Moreover, features of mutation and selection are heterogeneous along the genome and over time. Mechanistic codon substitution models based on the mutation-selection framework are promising approaches to separating these effects. In practice, however, several complications arise, since accounting for such heterogeneities often implies handling models of high dimensionality (e.g., amino acid preferences), or leads to across-site dependence (e.g., CpG hypermutability), making the likelihood function intractable. Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC) could address this latter issue. Here, we propose a new approach, named Conditional ABC (CABC), which combines the sampling efficiency of MCMC and the flexibility of ABC. To illustrate the potential of the CABC approach, we apply it to the study of mammalian CpG hypermutability based on a new mutation-level parameter implying dependence across adjacent sites, combined with site-specific purifying selection on amino-acids captured by a Dirichlet process. Our proof-of-concept of the CABC methodology opens new modeling perspectives. Our application of the method reveals a high level of heterogeneity of CpG hypermutability across loci and mild heterogeneity across taxonomic groups; and finally, we show that CpG hypermutability is an important evolutionary factor in rendering relative synonymous codon usage. All source code is available as a GitHub repository (https://github.com/Simonll/LikelihoodFreePhylogenetics.git).
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 | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".