Phylogenetically weighted regression: A method for modelling non‐stationarity on evolutionary trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Closely related species tend to resemble each other in their morphology and ecology because of shared ancestry. When exploring correlations between species traits, therefore, species cannot be treated as statistically independent. Phylogenetic comparative methods (PCMs) attempt to correct statistically for this shared evolutionary history. Almost all such approaches, however, assume that correlations between traits are constant across the tips of the tree, which we refer to as phylogenetic stationarity. We suggest that this assumption of phylogenetic stationarity might be often violated and that relationships between species traits might evolve alongside clades, for example, owing to the effects of unmeasured traits or other latent variables. Specific examples range from shifts in allometric scaling relationships between clades (e.g., basal metabolic rate and body mass in endotherms, and tree diameter and biomass in trees) to the differing relationship between leaf mass per area and shade tolerance in deciduous versus evergreen trees and shrubs. Innovation Here, we introduce an exploratory modelling framework, phylogenetically weighted regression, which represents an extension of geographically weighted regression (GWR) used in spatial studies, to allow non‐stationarity in model parameters across a phylogenetic tree. We demonstrate our approach using empirical data on flowering time and seed mass from a well‐studied plant community in southeastern Sweden. Our model reveals strong, diverging trends across the phylogeny, including changes in the sign of the relationship between clades. Main conclusions By allowing for phylogenetic non‐stationarity, we are able to detect shifting relationships among species traits that would be obscured in traditional PCMs; thus, we suggest that PWR might be an important exploratory tool in the search for key missing variables in comparative analyses.
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 | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".